Apr 13
Spokesman: Corzine not belted in during crash
CAMDEN, New Jersey (AP) — Gov. Jon S. Corzine was apparently not wearing his seat belt as required by law when his official SUV crashed into a guard rail, leaving the governor hospitalized in critical condition, a spokesman said Friday.
…
Seat belts are mandatory for everyone in front seats in New Jersey; the fine for violating the law is $46.
The liberal nanny state is all about the self-proclaimed elite telling you what’s best for you because you’re an idiot, while simultaneously exempting themselves from the same requirements.
Jackass.
My .Mac Web Gallery
Loading ...
April 13th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Was it the liberal nanny state, or the conservative nanny state that inserted RFID chips into your US Passport? Was it the liberal nanny state, or the conservative nanny state that suspended your right of habeas corpus? Was it the liberal nanny state, or the conservative nanny state that has effectively made smoking illegal? Was it the liberal nanny state, or the conservative nanny state that effectively nullified the Bill of Rights? Was it the liberal nanny state, or the conservative nanny state that has held prisoners without charge for years on end? Was it the liberal nanny state, or the conservative nanny state that has made air travel a federally mandated exercise in unrestricted search and seizure? Was it the liberal nanny state, or the conservative nanny state that has effectively made social drinking illegal? Was it the liberal nanny state, or the conservative nanny state that has made unrestricted speed limits illegal? Was it the liberal nanny state, or the conservative nanny state that has asked us to sacrifice liberty for safety?
It is just a godamn nanny state, and BOTH the “liberals” and the “conservatives” are equally responsible for it.
The fact is that we have allowed POLITICAL PARTIES to dominate the process through the creation of a class of professional legislators. People whose sole purpose and occupation is sitting in Congress, be it state or federal. They sit around and dream up laws, virtually all penned by special interests. We don’t need MORE laws, and more government. We need less legislation and legislators.
By labelling the act with the pejorative “liberal” you politicize the problem, and lay it at the feet of ONE side. In reality BOTH sides equal opportunity offenders in the removal of you rights Aaron. Both sides are also guilty of placing themselves above the laws they enact.
True FREEDOM has no political party. True FREEDOM has no leanings, be they liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, left or right. True FREEDOM is held only on an individual basis.
You can never legislate morality, nor can you legislate away death. You should fight against any attempt at either.
–chuck
April 13th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I think we’ve had this discussion before. Liberal means “more”, so any increase in government power is liberal. Conservative means “less”, so any decrease in government power is conservative.
Increases the power of government. Liberal.
US Constitution, Article I, Section 9:
Considering that clause is in Article I, which outlines the powers of Congress, I assume Congress has the duty, with consent of the President, to decide when to suspend habeas corpus. I don’t know that this could be defined as liberal or conservative since it’s an express power outlined in the Constitution.
Increases the power of government. Liberal. In Ohio this was done by referendum and not a particular political party.
Can you be more specific? I’d say both political parties are egregiously guilty of multiple infractions. However, any ideology that increases the power of government by reducing citizen rights is liberal.
I assume you’re talking about Guantanamo Bay. Citizens of other nations are not, by definition, subject to United States law or Constitutional rights, and they will proudly tell you that… Until they are captured in a war zone, and then they demand every protection of the very nation they seek to destroy.
Increases the power of government. Liberal.
Increases the power of government. Liberal.
Increases the power of government. Liberal.
Increases the power of government. Liberal.
I couldn’t agree with the last part of that more. However, I think the mistake you’re making is to completely associate political parties with particular ideologies, and it’s not that simple. I wouldn’t describe GWB as a conservative. Neither would I describe John McCain, Lindsey Graham, or a few others that way. Likewise, Joe Lieberman and Zel Miller aren’t exactly liberals.
As for professional legislators, I think something akin to that concept is a necessary evil. In Ohio, gay marriage and smoking have both been prohibited by the visceral reaction of the popular vote and not by solid logical thinking. I have to admit, I’m much more afraid of the mob than I am the legislators. Americans say they don’t want professional politicians, but when actors like Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger run for office, they’re criticized for not having the experience of… a professional politician. Billionaires like Michael Bloomberg are accused if buying elections instead of winning them. How about Ross Perot and James Stockdale? Perot was criticized because he was the dictatorial head of a company who didn’t have to compromise as a President would, so that disqualified him. Stockdale committed the unpardonable sin of looking bad on TV. I think we find a reason to be unhappy with everyone.
I lay it at the feet of one ideology, not one political party. I lay it at the feet of the idea that says I’m too dumb to think for myself and I need the smart people to help me out all the time. I don’t care what political party or individual that is, I oppose them.
The way I define it, freedom leans conservative, with the least government possible. As Thomas Jefferson said, “That which governs least governs best.”
Occasional posts on this site, and my vote, are my contribution to the fight.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
You say “Liberal means “moreâ€, so any increase in government power is liberal. Conservative means “lessâ€, so any decrease in government power is conservative.” I respectfully can not accept those definitions, as they are not consistent with either their dictionary definitions, nor the practices of those in power who cling to those labels and make their decisions based on their “Conservative” or “Liberal” ideals. If indeed they actually have ideals.
By your definition a “conservative” should be a strong supporter of say… abortion rights, as it keeps the government out of the most private of situations.
By your definition a “liberal” should be in favor of a huge military, as it expands and ensures the power of the State, even beyond its own borders to the entire world (can’t get more “more” than that!)
My worn old copy of Webster says “Liberal” means:
1. Free by birth; hence, befitting a freeman or gentleman;
refined; noble; independent; free; not servile or mean;
2. Bestowing in a large and noble way, as a freeman;
3. Not strict or rigorous; not confined or restricted to the
literal sense; free; as, a liberal translation of a
classic, or a liberal construction of law or of language.
4. Not narrow or contracted in mind; not selfish; enlarged in
spirit; catholic.
5. Free to excess;
6. Not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms in
political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion;
not conservative; friendly to great freedom in the
constitution or administration of government; having
tendency toward democratic or republican, as distinguished
from monarchical or aristocratic, forms; as, liberal
thinkers; liberal Christians; the Liberal party.
7. Being more than sufficient without being excessive
8. Bestowed in a large way; hence, more than sufficient;
abundant; bountiful; ample; profuse
Webster says “Conservatve” means:
1. Tending to resist or oppose
2. Kept or keeping within bounds
3. An irreconcilable opponent of change
4. On the political Right
5. Someone who holds fast to tradition
6. One who desires to maintain existing institutions and
customs; also, one who holds moderate opinions in
politics; — opposed to revolutionary or radical.
I believe that the nanny state, as you call it, is not liberal, nor conservative, it is condition of both the left and right wings of opinion, doing their damndest to impose their will upon everyone else. Which is backed up by my less & more arguments above.
I spent last summer reading James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional debates. I also have always felt that the US Constitution & Bill of Rights is one of the finest documents/contracts ever created by Man. Those debates, and the problems with the Articles of Confederation that preceeded it, are what that document came from. Madison was a compulsive note taker, and thankfully preserved for posterity the thoughts and concepts in the minds of those at the time. Much of it was mundane, and in reality irrelevant, as is much of the minutiae of our times. But the bigger picture, the important issues were all still there, as they are today.
I wonder how many of those who serve the citizens in Government have ever read those notes, or more importantly the Constitution and Bill of Rights? From their actions of late I doubt very many, if any.
–chuck
April 13th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
BTW: John Welch gave me that book of Madison’s notes. Thanks John! I’ll gladly pass it along to you Aaron if you want to read it. Just send me your address.
And I sure to hope that NJ Governor is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and pays his fine. As is his driver (a State Trooper no less!) for driving with an unsecured passenger, which I’m sure also carries some misdemeanor penalty. The rule of law is what binds society, and nobody is above it. =)
–chuck
April 15th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Actually, yes, they are consistent, at least according to the Oxford American Dictionary that comes with OS X.
liberal
conservatove
I have boldfaced the definitions that are consistent with my assertions.
I have some hydrocortisone cream in my medicine cabinet that says “apply liberally” in the instructions. As you know, that means to go ahead and use a bunch. However, if I had poison ivy and I was running out of cream, I’d want to conserve it, use less, until I had a chance to get some more.
And indeed many of us are. Don’t assume that conservative exclusively means Republican.
True enough, as long as that military is active within its own borders to enforce the will of the government. However, I’d say most conservatives believe that a strong military to protect national security and intervene elsewhere in the world, when required, in the national interest is one of the basic jobs of the Federal government, and is so stated in the Constitution. (”…provide for the common defense…”)
Roughly translated, liberal good, conservative bad, in a political context..
I believe that the nanny state is driven by both political parties’ desire to control citizen behavior via two different avenues. In short, because it’s a bit aside of the topic we’re discussing, the Republicans wish to enforce a religiously-based morality onto the populace, while the Democrats intend to enforce their societal structure upon us by financial means.
But back to the point. I believe that individual rights are the norm, the default if you will, the given part of the governmental equation. The variable, the encroachment, the part of the equation that needs to be monitored and measured and controlled is the size and power of Government. I think it makes the most sense to measure liberal and conservative against the government rather than the people. A conservative, less active, small and distant Federal government is what serves the people best. I am conservative because I believe the role of the Federal government should be conservative.
I have been reading, little by little, the Federalist Papers, which are our only real written justification for the Constitution. The Constitution, as you’ve probably noticed, mandates rather than explains, and being able to get a glimpse into why people like Madison were advocates for the Federalist structure we have today is very interesting. As you’ve commented, much of it is mundane, but there are a lot of interesting parts that make me say “Hm!” and raise my eyebrows when Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were more right than they realized, and warned us not to do exactly what we’re doing now.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Here’s an example: Last summer during the illegal immigration debate in Congress, the Senate was debating a bill that, among other things, imposed a fee (Or was it a fine?) on illegal immigrants before they could obtain legal standing. It turns out that none of our 100 Senators remembered Article I, Section 7, which gives the House of Representatives the sole power to originate bills for raising revenue. At worst, they’re woefully ignorant of the Constitution they’re sworn to serve. At best, they realized this problem but continued to have the debate anyway for the sake of talking about the issue, and they’re manipulative and disingenuous.
As of yet, neither has been charged. And I don’t expect them to be.
By the way, is this the kind of reasoned discourse you enjoy?
April 16th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
This isn’t Reasoned Discourse you ignorant slut!