Pretty much....labor laws, environmental laws, food/product safety laws, scientific/medical r&d, social safety nets, etc.

Call me stupid but I have yet to see where the Libertarian free market did this on its own....anywhere in the world at any time in history.

and we all know that a president would NEVER sign a law that was unconstitutional, right? Therefore, the alien and sedition acts signed by Adams must have been perfectly constitutional, even though jefferson later condemned it and pardoned anyone convicted of them.

I've yet to hear a libertarian successfully defend the notion that the "state" could run government better than the feds (outside of "but the framers wanted it that way!")

I live in Ohio, and our state government is a joke. They were billions over budget this year and went right to slashing things like education and libraries first (while ever championing adding casinos).

If you want the states to run/fund all this stuff, expect your state income tax to skyrocket (while your federal taxes, I imagine, stay the same).

No president since 1812 has seen fit to contradict or condemn Madison's interpretation of the role of the census....neither has any court.

pretty much what you're saying? that progressive is just the way it's going to have to be?

---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

the 'old rich white guy slave owners' argument. gets em every time.

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

ok, if we pay the government to guarantee safe food products, how come they aren't held responsible when they fail at it?

I didn't mention slaves, but okay.

and no president or court has found that FDRs interpretation of the commerce clause allowing them to tell a farmer how much wheat they can grow for personal use is unconstitutional either, but we all know it is.

You guys crack me up!

You just cant stand the fact that your "free market, get government off our backs" ideology, while it may look great on paper to you and a handful of others (relatively speaking), has never been in the "people's" interest as a whole, but in the interest of the few.

---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------

dk...any government action that you dont like, you generally toss under the "unconstitutional" banner. That doesnt work for me.

We are not talking about dred scot here, or agricultural price supports or even the Patriot Act.

Back to the census.

Your interpretation of the unconstitutionality of the census beyond a simple "enumeration of people" is just that...one interpretation and a purely ideological one at that....and for the record, Madson, (the father of the Constitution?) disagreed with you by evidence of what he authorized by law for one of the nation's first censuses.

---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

I honestly believe that this is what scares alot of people (not necessarily Libertarians, but many on the right):

Minorities, now roughly one-third of the U.S. population, are expected to become the majority in 2042, with the nation projected to be 54 percent minority in 2050.

US Census Press Releases

Pretending those minorities are not there, wont make that fact go away.

i just find it amazing.
the 18th century was a pretty interesting time in alot of ways, but jesus...living most anywhere in most any regular socio-economic situation was not pretty.
and there comes a point where these Panegyrics to the Grand Old Days based on seemingly no information about the period gets tired.

i'm certainly not saying the period was anything like a stone age.
i don't know where you got that idea.
but i do think that if most contemporary libertarians were to get sherman to set the wayback machine for, say, 1787 most places, they'd be dead in a matter of days. probably from some disease that had since been eradicated more or less. or strung up somewhere. and no-one would ever know. because record-keeping at that time--not real systematic.

but what i did say is the 18th century most libertarians evoke is the version you see in historical re-enactment parks.
which is fine.
just own up to it.

anyway, it was a digression and for that mea culpa.

Then a hundred years later....the Sherman Anti-Trust Act...but Peabody was the visionary!

This would be a major thread jack unfortunately, but a great new one.

Sound money, IE gold/silver standard, No central bank, 100% reserve banking,
government involvement restricted to fraud and property rights . . . I don't either, and that's the point. It would be a great read if you could share your knowledge about when in history it was tried and failed for reasons of its own implementation. Thanks

My point was that it has never been successful because a totally free market approach (not just banking and property rights) has never had the support of the "people" ...recognizing that in the past, it had benefited the few and not the many.
/end threadjack

and he wouldn't be the first elected president that endorsed an unconstitutional law after he came in to office. it's what elected officials do, talk about supporting the constitution and then find ways around it when they can't accomplish what they want to.

Or perhaps, unlike future presidents, Madison was a major author of the Constitution, and just might know the intent more than you.

Sweeping generalizations that presidents endorse unconstitutional laws after taking power does not make your position on the census any stronger.

and he conveniently left that intent out of all the debate papers and never contradicted major scholars like locke and justice marshall out of the loop? really?

nor does it make it any weaker. It merely shows that elected politicians always abuse the powers granted them.

um..dk? who do you mean by locke? john locke?

my bad, i was crossing two conversations. Not Locke, Tench Coxe.

The Census also has it's place in the medical field. Not having an acurate count of individuals and men/women can throw off medical/research funding, hospital facilities, placement of extremely expensive medical equipment, smaller clinics, etc.

Not to mention schools, fire stations, future water issues, land uses, police services and all that good stuff.

I bet 99.9% of Americans will respond to the census in a manner consistent with what they did in the past or based on their general predisposition to respond to something like the census without being influenced by imagined "movements". The enthusiasm surrounding this issue from the left reminds me of the fictional knight Don Quixote tilting at windmills, penned by Miguel De Cervantes Savedra.

For the record Glen Beck is not a champion of the "right". A few months ago I had never even heard of him, he is not accomplished in the private sector, the public sector, academia, religion, philanthropy... - other than being an entertainer what makes some of you think he has a special level of credibility and can have a measurable impact on how people respond to the census? Same question goes for Rush? These folks are first and primarily entertainers.

because the vast majority of their audience doesn't view them as entertainers. they view them as fonts of wisdom who sermonize from their radio pulpit about the evils of socialism and various other fairy tales. Don't confuse the motives of the entertainer with their audience

I don't know what the norm is for Glenn Beck but this shows he had 3 million viewers on 8/26. 3 million is less that 1% of the US population, I would assume many of his viewers are liberal (just like I watch Oberman occasionally just to see what he is talking about - ironically he spends a lot of time talking about people like Beck). I am also going to assume his viewers are going to decline because he is not very good.

Big Beck: Goes over 3 million viewers, beats O’Reilly in demo: Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - TV Ratings, Nielsen Ratings, Television Show Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.com

Ditto for Rush listeners:

Daily Kos: Counting Limbaugh's listeners

read the entire article, the numbers are in dispute, based on counting methods.

I have not checked but Chris Rock may be reaching as many or more people than Beck. Chris Rock's political commentary is much more entertaining.

More stubborn refusal to see reality by Ace. shocker

it's amazing then the magnitude of the coincidences involved here, ace.
the talking head set which speaks to and for the populist right modulates their "issue" of the moment, and across america freethinking conservatives just happen to pick up the same issues in the same language at the same time. o wait, i know: this astonishing coincide proves the validity of these "issues" doesn't it?
and you base this on the fact that you don't watch glenn beck or listen to limbaugh or anyone else from conservative media.

so how might you explain this astonishing coincidence, which is all the more astonishing for the fact that it seems to happen over and over?

Obama was on vacation. The shock value of TH meetings has worn thin. The birther "movement" has no traction. Conservatives have conflicting views regarding Afghanistan. Ridge went on his apology tour without much public pressure. Football season has not started, and they need an issue of the day. These entertainers (right) feed from the same troth (the left all feed from their own troth). That is my explanation. I don't see a grand conspiracy.

---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

My reality is that I bet Glenn Close could do a better "Glenn Beck" than Glenn Beck. at least she would be nicer to look at. Wasn't Glenn Beck a Top 40 DJ before adopting his political shtick? A "top 40 DJ"??? Isn't that the worst kind of DJ you can be??? It is like you don't have the balls to do hard rock, punk, jazz, gansta rap, or house, but you are going to earn a living playing the Back Street Boys on the radio!!!! And you folks think he is a leader in conservative circles??? You talk about reality...o.k.!

I have no idea what you're talking about now

who would you define as the main players in the contemporary conservative movement?
just wondering.

Glenn Beck is an entertainer. Glenn Beck is an actor. Glenn Beck is a clown, in that he exaggerates his actions and words to entertain. I disagree with the notion that many, if any people take him serious. I guess other than those on the left who actually think he has clout.

then you really are as out of touch as I've suspected. This statement is asinine

It couldn't possibly be due to whatever action is going on in Congress? You know, like, um, heathcare? Maybe we are talking about healthcare at the same time they (Beck, Limbaugh) seem to be talking about healthcare because it coincides with the time that Congress is talking about healthcare?...and I'm not even a rocket scientist!

Chaney
McConnell
Graham
Boehner

In the media

Will
Kristol
Kudlow
Rove

To name a few. I do not think any of the above will run for President, I think it is wide open.

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------

So, you take Beck serious?

you forgot to add weekly rites of worship service. :rolleyes:

I wasn't trying to draw connections between the audience at Christians in general. Poor choice of word (sermonize)


I don't, but I don't believe in his ideology. I know many, many people who do though

I know many people who are conservative who absolutely worship Glenn Beck and spout off stuff he says as absolute truth. Ace, you may not watch him but that doesn't mean other don't as well. So many people use the exact same rhetoric that they hear from the Glenn Beck's and Rush Limbaugh's that it is ridiculous to say people don't take him seriously.

ace--i don't think the town hall meetings, and their slogans/tactics, came together around the columns of george will or bill kristol or whatever it is that karl rove does these days (the last one i don't know about for sure)...it's pretty obvious that the ways in which issues were framed came out of populist conservative media and that the primary, though not exclusive, drivers for this at the masscult level were people like limbaugh & beck and other zanies. there's little doubt that there's also bloggers who are important in here as well as other forms of collective mobilization brought to you by the usual conservative groups and their funders in the insurance industry (these days).

and it's entirely implausible, given the whacked out ways in which much of the public face of the town hall phenom has gone, that these folk just converged and happened to be saying the same things based on the state of affairs that obtained in congress at a particular moment.

there are of course people on the right with principled objections who are not part of the organized populist zaniness that we've been treated to as a public spectacle.
and not everyone on the right watches the talking heads.

but there's no way to go from there to any argument that therefore there's no influence.

it seems so obviously false, that kind of argument, that i really can't figure out why you'd head down this path and try to make the claim.

I will be more clear in connecting the dots, I apologize for occasionally mentally getting ahead of what I write.

A person like Beck (and Rush for that matter), a person who would be a Top 40 DJ, would do that not for the love of music, but they do it because it is their job. It is what they do to make money. A person (at least to me) who loves music makes a commitment to a type of music or different types of music because that is what is really in their heart regardless of popularity.

When a person like Beck (or Rush) makes the decision to be a political talk show host, they have to develop a concept for their act and they have to make sure it is marketable. They are entertainers, they are in show business.

So, a person like Beck decides to be a talk show host - odds are he can be more successful as a conservative talk show host (I am not saying he does not have underlying conservative views, but he has shown a willingness to do what needs to be done in show business to make a buck).

If you are going to be a conservative talk show host realizing how crowed the market is, you have to bring something unique to the table. In Beck's case he positions himself to be the most boisterous, animated, unconventional talk show host in the market. To maintain that he has to be "over the top".

A person like Beck is "over the top" by taking existing core emotional issues and exploits them. He uses "show biz" gimmicks to do it. He creates illusions. but the illusions are based on some core concerns and fears held by conservatives.


The issue is not people following him, but more of him finding an issue and taking it "over the top". So, the question is what came first, "the chicken or the egg" so to speak?

Conservatives, including me, have an underlying concern of big government being too intrusive. So, Beck takes that underlying concern - matches it with the census (even-though there really is no difference between this up coming census and the ones in the past) - he creates his controversy - he gets attention - he gets viewers.

However, at the core he does not change anyone's views. He does not influence anyone's behavior. All he has done was meet his obligation for ratings so that he gets paid. then he moves on to the next issue of the day.

All of you who are saying I know people who take Beck serious, I would bet that you really don't. I mean serious in the way that they would actually act or do something Beck wants them to do. A person who scream, yea!, at the TV while Beck is on as he continues to eat Doritos and has no plans to do anything other than get another cold beer from the fridge is not a person who I would consider taking Beck serious. TH meetings, Tea parties, etc., have had nothing to do with a guy like Beck.

yes I know that Glenn Beck is just acting but a lot of people don't. He takes conservative concerns over the top and then the conservatives who watch him and take it seriously take the over the top statements he makes and regurgitate those statements. His lies (yes most of the shit he says are flat out lies) get ingrained in many peoples' heads as the truth and nothing will dissuade them from that "truth".

And yes I have a few friends who absolutely swear by Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. When I disagree with the bullshit that they spout (yes it is bullshit because they still believe Obama isn't a citizen) they say that it's people like me that are destroying America and yes they are very serious about it. It's scary.

There is, in my opinion, a correlation between the growing hostility with government and the ineffectiveness of government. Rush, was on every day during the Clinton administration doing the same thing he is doing now. The difference has more to do with unemployment and how people feel about the future than Rush going off on liberals. All these guys do is just tap into the sentiment and ride the wave. They do not create the sentiment. They do not have that kind of power.

I have shared my views on the TH meetings in other posts. I don't listen to Rush nor watch Beck regularly and my frustration level is as high as it has ever been. My frustration is related to several things, the most important is the lack of focus from the WH and their unwillingness to address simple questions.

I think you guys are "tilting at windmills". You create your false monsters for a reason I don't understand. Another example is Palin. she is one of your "monsters", yet she has no power, and no real influence to change behaviors or views. I like Palin because she sees many things the way that I do, she has never persuaded me. On the other hand, Reagan actually changed the way I saw things - I did not vote for him, but I became a Republican because of him.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

What were they before Beck and Hannity? If they were the same, I don't get your point. If they changed, I accept your point and agree that they do have some influence and perhaps have more than I realize. I would love to see an objective study on the issue at hand here.

[QUOTE=aceventura3;2698635]




I think you guys are "tilting at windmills". You create your false monsters for a reason I don't understand. Another example is Palin. she is one of your "monsters", yet she has no power, and no real influence to change behaviors or views. I like Palin because she sees many things the way that I do, she has never persuaded me. On the other hand, Reagan actually changed the way I saw things - I did not vote for him, but I became a Republican because of him.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

Sarah Palin is directly responsible for the bullshit claim of "death panels" which has been proven to be a bold faced lie, yet the right wing media(beck, rush etc) continue to use this term as fact. They are not false monsters they are very real.

If you are referring to Beck and Hannity, neither of them believe Obama is NOT a U.S. citizen. For you to say here that they believe that is as irresponsible as the point you are trying to make about them. If you mean your friends, then yes your friends are scary. Obama is a U.S. citizen, anyone who says otherwise placed charges in tower seven.

If there is nothing more to be added to this discussion about the census, perhaps it is time for a moderator to shut it down!

Take the Beck debate somewhere else please.