Why does the Left always win? Easiest answer in the world! They fight. They shoot to kill. They hang traitors. They do not retreat unless faced with overwhelming forces. They say “The hell with the rules.”
Those with some reading will recognize that these are the same characteristics that allow any army to win. It was not in the spirit of dialog that George Patton crushed utterly his foe in the Ardennes—a practice he would have repeated with the detestable Soviets, thus preventing the Cold War, had enemies on the Left in his own government had not in turn crushed him. Compromise was not on the Left’s great General Sherman’s mind as he carved a scar through the country, which to this date has still not healed over.
Headline: Samantha Bee Condemns NBC and Jimmy Fallon’s Trump Interview. Fallon was a traitor because of the sin of parlay, of consorting with the Enemy. This stingless Bee said, “Network execs, and a lot of their audience, can ignore how very dangerous Trump is because to them, he isn’t.” Fallon, flying a flag of truce, failed to thump Trump. Fallon should have lured Trump in under the false flag and ambushed him. No rules.
Headline: Matt Lauer Fields Storm of Criticism Over Clinton-Trump Forum. Lauer, a man who (as the Blonde Bombshell puts it) is paid to drink coffee on TV, committed the same blunder as Fallon. Though Lauer was outmatched in the ring as a Wymen’s Studies Graduate would be to Mike Tyson and would have been reduced to a greasy spot on the carpet had he attacked Trump, that he failed to volunteer for this suicide mission brought the ire of his comrades. No compromise.
Peter Kreeft, the gentle Boston philosopher, man of brilliance, and solider for Tradition, was asked “about the simultaneous rise of militant Islam and the homosexual activist movement despite their opposing ideologies, Kreeft replied: ‘They’re the only two movements in Western civilization that will fight and die for their beliefs.'”
“It is an amazing paradox that they’re opposites in almost every way, and yet they’re similar in that they will still fight,” added Kreeft. “Christians are supposed to fight too, the notion of spiritual warfare, the true meaning of jihad — a war against sin rather than flesh and blood. This is central to Christianity and we’ve lost it, and therefore opposite forces are entering the vacuum.”
Instead of fighting, we surrender apologetically when pushed, and as we fade we mouth words about accompanying people on their “spiritual journey” or “My Constitution guarantees free speech.”
Jihad headline. Indiana pizza shop that won’t cater gay weddings to close. A Left foot-solider on patrol armed with a camera searched for a kill, entered Memories Pizza in Indiana and asked the owner whether they would cater a gay “wedding.” The owner said no. The Left army responded with every weapon at their command. The Mongol horde would have been jealous by strength of the onslaught. Insanely screeching banshees weren’t in it. The Battle of The Slice had its effect: the timid generals of the Right, after hinting they might resist, surrendered without honor and unconditionally.
But this isn’t a history of the Culture Wars, and in any case examples are easily brought to mind, especially if you’re on a college campus. Why do we lose? “Because,” says Kreeft, “we became sheep.”
We said, “Abuse us. We’re polite. We’ll smile at you. We are tolerant of everything.” When people are that way, someone who has principles, bad or good, enters. We so worship equality that we are afraid to be different, to be distinctive, to have a distinctive message. And equality is a good defensive weapon, but it has no offense in it. We need equal rights to protect ourselves, but we need something much deeper than equality: We need distinctiveness, we need identity. And if we abandon that, others will come in and take over.
Trump fights. His supporters, many still wearing masks, fight. You might not like the tactics or even the goals of the Alt-right, but, really, after so many decades of systematic withdrawal by the Normie-right—nay, a route, a retreat littered with position papers and think tank budget forecasts—what authority remains to complain?
The most gratifying thing about the rise of Trump and his army is the look of shock horror on the face of his Left enemies as they realize their nose has just been bloodied. Our prayer is that the generals of Right take notice (the Field Marshals of Tradition never forgot) that fighting works.
Awesome! Finally someone else voiced the same reason I like Donald Trump! It is very simple… he fights back! When the SJW’s on the left throw out their baseless, ‘false flag’ attacks, he LEADS BY EXAMPLE and shows the Right how easy it is to fight back… to not accept the premise of the ‘false flag’.
I don’t think equality even works very well defensively. If it was such a great defense, then where’d all this come from?
I believe the point here is that it is offensive. “Equality” as it is used means “everybody should be and act like me”. Strangely, it means “diversity”.
Not sure Trump is different from Hillary except superficially. He just has a different notion of what voters want to hear. Does anyone really know what his plans actually are if he gains office?
Facing the Hillary/Trump choice is a lot like facing the choice between being burned alive or boiled in oil.
Exactly what I tell people. The left/progressives win because the right/???? will not stop buying tech while complaining about immigrants being brought in and trained by the replaced workers (like I would EVER do that, yet these fools do), they go to football games where the national anthem is disrespected, they politely fold like a deck of cards and then whine about everything being wrong.
Newsflash: Unless you stop supporting Hillary/Ryan/Obama and all the others who are replacing your jobs and flooding your country with immigrants, you should learn to love being doormats. Trump CANNOT fix this unless he has help. He is not the Messiah and if you sit home and do nothing while supporting Soros, Zuckerberg, etc with your money and time, it will not get fixed. I have little hope of repair. People want a miracle so they can keep the IPhones, the Facebook page, still go to football games and all this will magically go away. They don’t want the hard work.
I have saved hundreds because I will not buy anything that is not essential and will not buy from PC companies unless I have no other option. It’s very good for your savings account. Plus, you don’t contribute to the Hillary and Soros and whomever in the power structure. People have the power—they just refuse to use it. The end result of this is always defeat and captivity by those who were willing to fight. One hopes Americans like being the slaves of the Left, since that’s what they are going for.
A sign I have on my desk: ‘If we don’t change direction, we’ll end up where we’re headed.” Changing direction requires action. Doing nothing means ending up where we’re headed—straight to the enslavement of the rich and powerful. (Fallon and Lauer are good examples of how being part of the rich and powerful is irrelevent if you aren’t behaving as prescribed by the tribe—you can be voted off the island instantly. Progressives naively believe they are exempt—trust me, wolves eat anything that gets in their way and so will the Left. Being on the Left is useless—someone with more power will crush you. It’s what happens when survival of the most powerful replaces society’s power.)
Even now with the riots going on most conservatives I see online and especially the famous ones are reactinging enragingly impotently. The alt right often gets smeared with the statements of its most extreme adherents but it is the only future left for the right.
I think the left is also about ten thousand times more willing to be political.
An example- minimum wage, or wages in general. The right / libertarian idea is that wages and productivity have something to do with each other. The leftist idea is that wages are decided politically. The right says leave everything alone, and this ought shall be an is. The left play politics at every scale, whether it be globally, or in your office. Thus we all know of examples of people who are paid frighteningly more than they are worth, often while doing injury to the company. Just right now, twitter, youtube, and other social media people are taking out pop-right celebs- precisely the opposite of what they should be doing, since, as social media sites, they desperately need the traffic. They aren’t old guard media that can just broadcast- they need responses, proof of engagement. They can’t get that with safe spaces.
But again, the left is willing to be political, even at the expense of their companies.
Trump got the Bushs to show that RINOs are DINOs
Sheri says, “I will not buy anything that is not essential”
Is that why your one-star review of Dr. Briggs’ book consists entirely of:
Frankly, it’s hard to see how this could possibly be fair – especially considering how ready Amazon is to accept returns.
If the Left “always” wins (i.e. the political, legislative, and judicial battles), and as a result of such wins events transpire that prove they’re worse off than had they lost (e.g. economic conditions in Detroit, etc., etc.) … have they really “won”?
That’s about as philosophical as I can get…
If what I’m about to say offends anybody here, it has to be said and it’s nothing personal. If the cap fits!
A lot of ‘right’ isn’t right at all, it’s liberal elite and we have the same problem in Britain.
Here’s how America’s predicament appears to me:
The left doesn’t always win. The right, having something of a PR problem, behave like clowns, helping the left to victory. Which from here looks like rather too many don’t really care in fact or are duplicitous and will vote for Trump when the chance comes.
The left wins because they have the emotional argument and the right allows them to have it by behaving atrociously and making the first emotional argument look correct amid all the noise.
Theres enough money and more brain power on the right to combat all of the lies and skullduggery but it seems the money and brain power is put to other uses. Perhaps if Trump gets in and having experience of choosing good people he will chose the best experts and strategist to help turn things around for the Conservatives.
The right helps them win by playing spectacularly bad shots and almost without fail picking on the wrong target.
When they miss the shot or things come off half cocked they tell themselves it doesn’t matter anyway and ignore the own goals. This has definitely worsened over the last few years and some of the right behave more like headless chickens than intelligent Conservatives.
They are so busy pointing at Trump’s bloopers but I think many if not most of them were absolutely calculated. Perhaps not the words he choses but the attitude is deliberate. It looks like exactly what is needed to combat PC culture. Somebody has to be the first.
Some of the more poe faced Republicans should bow down and thank the man instead of trying to look virtuous in his wake.
To the idealists, who know better and should not be encouraged, arguing against democracy looks like sour grapes when it happens in election season rather than an intellectual proposition.
It is to point out the flaws which are long understood about the system. Outside of revolt, it’s all the right or any ordinary individual can do to chose to vote or not.
The powerful section of the right does very little at all so that they can maintain their own status quo.
Fiddling while Rome burns is the phrase.
If you care, act like you care, like it really counts this time because from here, the lack lustre performance of the right looks like it might really damage itself for the last time.
The left is tight…they back the douchebag that the LEFT tells them to back and don’t question it.
Meanwhile, FoxNews and other allegedly conservative media attack the guy on the RIGHT, basically giving the left a break.
I saw this during the Romney debacle and I’m seeing it now.
Typical conservative talk radio example: “Why is Trump doing this? Why is he doing that? If I were him, I’d…” They rarely touch on Clinton’s serious ethics violations and daily foibles, focusing instead on Trump’s minor gaffes. Grrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!
As long as the right eats its own, it deserve eveverything it gets…
I listen to a fair amount of talk radio. Much of that talk is in favor of Trump. If not outright support then grudging ‘he’s the candidate so I’ll vote for him’, support. Maybe you listen to other radio shows.
Fox News seems to want to play it straight, that is, question the veracity of both candidates.
From the Fox news analysis shows it’s clear that O’Reilly is conservative although he won’t come right out and say it. And Hannity is quite the Republican cheerleader no matter whom the candidate might be.
The left wins because we have bought into the idea of politics as a career.
Bigger, more expansive and expensive government is always in the best interests of any career politician regardless of party or ideology.
Smaller, more limited, less expensive government is always against the personal best interests of a career politician regardless of party or ideology.
The politicians on the right fight halfheartedly because they are being asked to fight against their personal best interests.
The politicians on the left fight with everything they’ve got because they are being asked to fight for their personal best interests.
This is why when you look into spending cut proposals by the right, what you always find is not real cuts, but reductions in the rate of growth of government spending, but they have to try to sell it to their base as real cuts.
That lets the left bash the growth limiting proposals as drastic/catastrophic spending cuts and the right can’t fight back.
Lee: The review was because Briggs constantly says the book was overpriced. If I cannot believe the author that I paid too much for the book, who can I believe?
Oh come on…The left always wins because the elite in power support them with money, the media, and the legal system to ensure their victory every single time that a victory matters. It really that simple. Power is above culture. Power bounds, shapes and determines culture, and not the other way around. Not only does Power bind culture negatively, it also dictates what becomes culture through the needs of the actors within the society in question. The Iron Law of Rebellious Tools, the championing of secularism, the constant high-low conflict of modernity, all of it derives from divided governance which results in the funding of ideas and concepts that are selected for their value to the actors and not their overall accuracy. Empiricism, Cultural Marxism, Positivism, Liberalism and Liberal anthropology, anti-racism, atheism etc. are all products of this system. The leftward drift is explainable.
ONE OF THE REASONS THE LIBERAL LEFT WINS:
On the Seduction of the Liberal Agenda:
The liberal agenda’s favors seduce the people a little at a time, always playing on their regressive longings to be indulged. Favor by favor, accompanied by the constant drumbeat of entitlement propaganda, the otherwise intelligent citizen is led to an increasingly erroneous conception of the proper role of government in a free society. Like a child molester, the liberal politician grooms his constituents until their natural cautions against yielding power in exchange for favors dissolves in reassurance.
Under the creed of modern liberalism the individual citizen is not called to maturity but is instead invited to begin a second childhood. Like the child at play, he is given, or at least promised, ultimate economic, social and political security without having to assume responsibility for himself. The liberal agenda requires him to remain in an artificial environment–the daycare program of the grandiose state–where he need not become an adult, take responsibility for his own welfare, nor cooperate with others to achieve what the state will give him for nothing.
That’s from the book, “The Liberal Mind” and the above is an excerpt published, with other excerpts, at: http://libertymind.com/book-excerpts_257.html
1. asymmetric warfare
2. better manipulators
3. destruction is easier than construction
4. cornered the choke points (education and media)
I like about Trump that he fights, but I have 2 quibbles:
1. No way could Patton or anyone else have crushed the Red Army in 1945. Even at its peak in March, Eisenhower’s forces would have been hard-pressed to even hold their own in a stand-up fight–and by May, Ike’s army was already melting away as replacements had stopped around April 1 and whole divisions started being rotated to prepare for the invasion of Japan in mid-April. FRD and then Truman did not know if the A-bomb would work and were desperate for Soviet help in taking down Japan. A new war in Europe was NOT on the agenda, and Patton talking like that only shows what a strategic cipher he was, tho a great combat commander.
2. I would disagree with Kreeft. What radical Islamism and homosexual rights warriors have in common is their common enemy: Judeo-Christian bourgeois civilization; aka, “civilization as we know it”.
Sorry, that was “FDR”
There are too many things wrong with this post to even begin to address. The terrorist/gay activist comparison alone is so stupid, I think I permanently lost an IQ point just reading it. Tradition my ____.
The first rule of sale:
NEVER say ANYTHING! negative.
What you said wasn’t cricket.
1) The Left does not always win.
2) If the Left mostly win the ”battles”, it is mainly because they favor individual freedom which the Right despise to the favor to collective freedom, which is truly tyranny (the only freedom that count is mine and the people like me).
The alt-right does n ot surrender.
“I think I permanently lost an IQ point just reading it”
Wow, a person with 1/2 an IQ point left.
” Clinton’s serious ethics violations”
Trump using money given by other people to pay court settlements is not a serious ethic violation??????
Trump paying Pam Bondi to not sue him is not ethic violation.
The left wins because it has taken command of the dictionary. That was Orwell’s message.
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
From “Politics and the English Language”.
? George Orwell, Politics and the English Language
Equality is an attempt at compromise. The only sensible answer is to send all Leftists to Brazil, where they will be MUCH HAPPIER thanks to all the vibrant diversity and enriching wisdom of the poor. Great article!
For the record, I think the question is more simply answered. The Left always wins because:
1. Simplistic, illusory ideas are more popular.
2. They are intolerant of anything but their ideas.
3. They do not waste time on productive activity instead.
The average Leftist could contribute to society through labor, but instead, he works even harder to subvert it. For him, there is a moral binary: the Left is good, and everything else is unpopular and broke like a drunk ignorant garbageman. To win that moral binary, he creates pleasant illusions because in his view, ALL is a means to the end of that moral victory, and whether he lies or not is irrelevant.
The only solution is helicopter rides. Well… helicopter rides, to Brazil. But still: away from us. Away from here. To their own toxic future and fate. But not ours.
They won the schools (and the Jesuits incidentally) a long time ago and since then have been churning out Jersey McJoneses (who can ill-afford to lose any more “IQ points”) and Sylvains by the millions. Some of them vote.
Maybe you are the one that should take the chopper to Russia who seems to share your retarded values a lot more than the western country,
Trump fights, so does Hillary Clinton.
The left doesn’t always win. If it does, here are two possible reasons:
(1) The left has God on its side.
(2) The right, the presumed enemy of the left, knows neither the left nor themselves. Sun Tzu would agree with me, especially after reading this post and some of the comments here.
The left wins because they do not fight “fair.” They are willing to crush their opponents, using every non-violent means at their disposal – lying, a mendacious press, corrupt bureaucrats, consequentialists judges who ignore the Constitution, bureaucracies that are uninterested in Constitutional rights and limits, etc.
On the other hand, if they go too far… the right has most of the guns and most of the people who know how to use them. Let us pray, fervently, that it never.comes to that.
Who are you to say that the judges do not follow the constitution. It seems that you are the one that do not understand it and respect it.
No wonder you support Trump who doesn’t care about any laws.
Liberal Supreme Court judges have repeated ruled based on what they thought the best result would be, irregardless of the Constitution.
Even Kennedy, who is only a social liberal, does this.
Who am I? Someone who understands the Constitution. It isn’t hard, you know.
The Left always wins because it redefines failed or unpopular left-wing movements as right wing. Eugenics used to be a left-wing idea. When I was in high school, Andrew Jackson was a liberal icon. If you look at mid-20th century literature, tobacco was considered to be something only right-wing bluenoses opposed. There’s been at least one attempt to blame AGW hysteria on Margaret Thatcher. I’ve even seen an attempt to claim the Industrial Revolution for the Left. (I won’t more than mention National Socialism.)
If Clinton loses, the Left will proclaim that moderation has failed and they should have gone with Sanders.
” If the Left mostly win the ”battles”, it is mainly because they favor individual freedom …”
Does that include the right to pay less than the minimum wage? Does it include the right to decide who you will bake cakes for?
”Does that include the right to pay less than the minimum wage?”
What does this have to do with individual freedom? There are people that murder other people and never get caught. I guess it means they had or have the right to murder.
You do understand that individual liberties go both ways.
No one is forced to bake a cake, but a place of business owns no individual freedom to discriminate.
You remember the Dred Scott case. As disgusting as the ruling was, the judge followed the constitution. The elected congress under the Lincoln administration followed the constitution and amended it in a way that it canceled the Dred Scott decision.
It seems that for you the constitution was frozen in time around 1793.
I see Hurricane Nonsequitur has doubled back; is picking up steam and blowing hard.
I love it when posters self-refute.
Remember, they’re all in favor of “individual freedom”… and defining who is an “individual.”
No one is forced to bake a cake, but a place of business owns no individual freedom to discriminate.
I love it when posters self-refute …
Remember, they’re all in favor of “individual freedom”… and defining who is an “individual.”
Apparently a person with a sole proprietorship is not included in the class of “individual” so can be forced to bake a cake. Owning a business rescinds your rights.
I think this post gets to the heart of the problem. Conservatives have always tried to remain somewhat “respectable” to their Liberal detractors. No matter what, the last thing that Mainstream Conservatives want, is to be thought of as un-intellectual, racist, backwards, or unsophisticated.
The Left had always entered an argument with a home ground advantage. Always. They could rely, with 100% certainty, that any accusation would be met with a defensive posture.
Imagine that you have a word, or words, that when uttered would cause your opponent to grovel, pee their pants and try to justify not only their own position, but themselves! Well, you would use it, wouldn’t you? All the time?
This is what the Right never quite got. They lamented at being called names, yet always terminated a winning train of though to focus, or defend the name. They reacted to what turned out to be a winning tactic for them, then were genuinely puzzled why the Left would double down, triple down and go to town with this winning tactic.
The Alt-Right doesn’t seem to care. The Alt-Right has called out this behaviour and given it a name. The behaviour of the cuckold. They don’t care, and the Left loses it weapon.
Hence why Trump scares them. Trump failed to grovel. Trump failed to go on the defensive. Trump failed to derail. They can’t control Trump the way they could the respectables, and the moment that people stop reacting to their shrieks, its game over.
They win because 1) they are “progressive”, and “progressive means that they are always advancing in offensive and attacking. We are “conservative”, so we wait and defend.
They choose the point and the time, and if we are succesful defending all they have to do is attack again. They own the agenda. Our agenda.
2) We are “conservative”, so we tend to preserve the statu-quo. But they are the ones to define what the statu-quo is after they conquer a position and make it institutional. Then we defend it. How? Well…think about divorce law. Are we attacking divorce law? No. It would seem very strange to do it. We are Neo-Cons, defending the New-Normal.
The solution for that, I think is to be more than Conservative, but Reactionarists and beyond. We should regain the initiative, and we should be attacking their positions. Par example, they want to forbide Religion at schools, we should fight for mandatory classes, and not only in schools, but in Universities. They want gay marriage? We should fight to outlaw gay reationships.
Are you surprised about this proposals? Well…that is why you are loosing. Because you are a liberal, but you just don´t know it.
(English is not my first language, so apologize if i am too direct, the exressions, and eventual spelling/grammar mistakes)
DAV and Nate Winchester,
It is always fun to chat with people who have no understanding of the law.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“Civil Rights Act of 1964
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
A federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex (including pregnancy), and religion in employment, education, and access to public facilities and public accommodations, such as restaurants and hotels. The employment provisions of the law are often referred to as “Title VII,” based on their location in the U.S. Code.”
Where does it says that a place of business as the right to refuse to serve a costumer.
Yes the business does not have the same right as the sole owner of it.
The founders understood that rights need not be enumerated in order to be real – see the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. Liberals try to pretend that amendment doesn’t exist, because they like enumerated rights. They can then whittle these down all they want.
Likewise, they hide behind the fiction that a because one is participating in a business, one has no rights.
And, they like to extend the Civil Rights Act (itself clearly unconstitutional as it violates the Interstate Commerce Clause) to places where it doesn’t apply. For example, refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding fits none of the listed criteria. It is not discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Furthermore, forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding clearly violates the both the religious freedom and freedom of expression clauses of the First Amendment.
This is typical of the left. They will take a law and distort the heck out of it. They will do the same with the Constitution, or they will simply choose to ignore it. Tell me, Sylvain, do you believe that the Supreme Court’s Raich ruling was valid? And, since you agree that Dred Scott was abominable, why do you favor being able to force someone to do labor against their will?
I said nothing about the law, merely your principles and the hypocrisy.
“Some animals more equal than others…” as the rule always goes.
You mean like like the whites versus the slaves when the constitution was signed.
Everyone as the same right to be able to acquire property, this includes cakes.
“The founders understood that rights need not be enumerated in order to be real – see the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. Liberals try to pretend that amendment doesn’t exist, because they like enumerated rights. They can then whittle these down all they want.”
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Yes, I know the 9th amendment and I’m not sure you understand what it really means.
It actually means that more right are protected than those enumerated in the constitution, i.e. the right for same sex couple to get married.
Churches can define marriage as they want the government can not force them to change their definition but Churches cannot force the government to define marriage as they want it define. The government has to accept the belief of everyone.
In no way does the 9th amendment means that their is a right to discriminate against a group of people, or that a right only apply to certain people.
“Likewise, they hide behind the fiction that a because one is participating in a business, one has no rights.”
But there is a difference between the right of the business and the right of the individual. It is the business that have been sued in photograph and bakery causes, not the individual. They are both separate entity and do not have the same legal protection.
You would have a case if any individual was forced to get gay married.
I own a business (driving school). I prefer teaching to young women because they are smarter and better driver than and more interesting to talk with. Yet I cannot deny services to male student that want to come to the school. I have to accept everyone who qualifies to receive the service I render.
The same way, all my employee are women and I would not hire a man, except maybe on the road. But I accept all CV and usually hire the person I want and usually ancient student with who I get along with.
“And, they like to extend the Civil Rights Act (itself clearly unconstitutional as it violates the Interstate Commerce Clause) to places where it doesn’t apply.”
The civil right act was upheld by a 9-0 decision with justices named by 4 named by republican president (Eisenhower) and 5 by a democratic president (Roosevelt and Truman). So the law is constitutional.
“For example, refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding fits none of the listed criteria. It is not discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”
This is where the 9th amendment would apply. The list mentioned in the 14th amendment cannot be considered exhaustive.
“Furthermore, forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding clearly violates the both the religious freedom and freedom of expression clauses of the First Amendment.”
Yes but it also violate the religious freedom of the customer. This is where it is important to differentiate between the individual and the business entity. The business entity doesn’t have the same legal protection than the individual,(ex. you could not force someone that you cross on the street to bake a cake, but you can force a business that sells cake to sell one to a customer they don’t like. That customer has the legal protection to acquire property of something that a business sells.
“Supreme Court’s Raich ruling was valid?” I haven’t read the complete opinion but considering that Scalia and Ginsburg both were on the same side I would say that it is valid regarding the present law, which is a California law.
Should the law be modified to permit the use of medical marijuana, yes.
“why do you favor being able to force someone to do labor against their will?”
It does not require anything different on the part of the baker than the work he usually does.
Glad you got that out of your system. Now you no longer need that enema.
Too bad you couldn’t keep the pile north of the border. But thank you for sharing anyway. It’s the thought that counts.
Still not in prison. Must be because your white.
“Everyone as the same right to be able to acquire property, this includes cakes.”
Wrong. Nobody has the right to acquire anyone else’s property. People have the right to *sell* property, not *buy* it.
Sylvain, for one who claims others do not understand law or the constitution, it is especially ironic you show your ignorance of the entire structure of rights in the Constitution. Rights, to the founders, were held to be natural as was shown by history an logic. In particular, the 9th Amendment was about natural rights, those that are so obvious, normal and historical as to not require mention. After much debate, they did include some specific rights, such as those of religion, in order to doubly protect those rights. Government certified marriage was not and is not a right. Government chose to certify marriage to protect the natural result of such unions: heterosexually produced (obviously) children. They added additional civil protections (not rights) for convenience, such as medical powers and inheritance. Again, these are not rights.
Same sex couples have had the right to marry for at least 10 years now. They do not have the right to have the state proclaim their union to be identical to that which it is not: heterosexual union. I even supported, for decades, government laws to recognize “civil union.” You can be utterly sure that the founders did not intent government conferring upon same sex couples a right to compel others to recognize their union, as it is not a natural right. On the other hand, the founders explicitly named religious rights – twice – in the First Amendment. They stated clearly that people have the right to practice their religion – note that it is not a freedom of worship, as the left now claims, but freedom of religion, which constitutes a life of religion, not just worship.
Likewise, your idea of constitutionality is incorrect. That five or six or nine justices declare something to be constitutional does not make it so. It is or it is not conitutional, regardless of what they say. Whether it is constitutional depends on what the creators of the Constitution would have said – i.e. what they intended and what they wrote. What they rule has the force of law, but the very fact that it can be overturned by five or six or nine justices in the future shows that their ruling does not define constitutionality.
You claim that refusing to sell someone a cake violates their religious rights. That is preposterous. Nobody involved in the transaction even knows their religious views, if they have any. Religion does not enter into the transaction. Furthermore, it is the government that violates rights, not individuals.
Nobody has a right to order someone else to bake a cake for their ceremony. Not gays, not heterosexuals. Nobody. Freedom is about letting people do things you disapprove of. Freedom is not about letting people do only that of which you approve. Think about that.
Regarding the constitutionality of the CRA. It clearly violates the intended and stated reach of the federal government. The constitution, as written and intended, only constrains the government, not individuals. It especially constrains the federal government, as the federal powers are highly limited. The federal government is allowed, through the 14th Amendment, to limit the violation of some rights by the states, and that is it.
The federal government has zero constitutional power to protect an individual’s rights from what another non-government actor, even though it tries to do that.
That the constitution has been intentionally distorted by progressives is not a good argument for further distortion.
As to Raich, perhaps you should read it. Do you agree that the federal government has the power to stop an individual from growing, only for his own personal use, marijuana? If so, is there any power the federal government does not have? If so, what is it? What is the limiting principle?
I am glad that you don’t mind the government infringing on your rights as a business owner. I hope you will be equally happy if conservatives win and, for the heck of it, require you to hire only conservatives. I hope you will be equally happy if you are required to provide services to the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party. After all, you are only a business, so you have no right to refuse these reasonable requests, right? Businesses have no rights, according to your view.
Why does the left always win? I think this question misses the point.
But before I get to that, I must say that there is some great reading in the above comments, some points exceptionally well-made and well-put. If you want succinctness, though, I don’t think you can do better than Rush, who explains it thus: “conservatism is hard, liberalism is the easiest thing in the world”:
But on to my main point, the question that interests me isn’t “why does the left win all the arguments?”, but rather “why do I care that the left wins all the argument?”.
The answer to that second question is, because when the left wins an argument, it negatively impacts my life.
My desire is not to win arguments with liberals. My desire is to be free as possible from consequences of distant centralized decision-making, liberal or conservative. This freedom is the precise goal of our founders in structuring our system of government; it existed before but has slowly been stolen from us, and I want it back. And yes, it’s worth dying for.
‘’Wrong. Nobody has the right to acquire anyone else’s property. People have the right to *sell* property, not *buy* it.”
Man you just drop the ball on this one.
The right to acquire is one of the basic principles behind capitalism.
“II. The Natural Right to Property
Of classical liberalism’s celebrated triad of natural rights – life, liberty, and property – the right to property is distinctive. Unlike the others, it is a right to something not inherent to our individual natures. Whereas life belongs to us as biological entities and liberty, arguably, as rational agents, material property does not naturally inhere in us at all. We are all born propertyless and would remain so if we did not somehow acquire property from without. It follows that the right to possess and/or dispose of ‘private’ property must be based in a prior right to acquire such property; i.e., a right to appropriate to ourselves what does not originally belong to us. Only property justly acquired can be justly possessed. This then leads to the question: what is the basis of the natural right to acquire property?”
“In other words, the societal right to property, like all societally based (as opposed to naturally based) rights, receives its justification through societal consent. Property within civil society, thus, is to be subject to laws based in the principle of universal consent. It is this principle that must do the job that spoilage does in the state of nature; to ensure that property is acquired, regulated, and distributed in a manner that continues to be “without injury to any one.””
Capitalism only works if a currency is recognizes for everyone by everyone. When a place of business refuses to sell a cake based on discriminatory practices it means that the business is depriving an individual of his fundamental right.
Of course, no one is force to sell his property, except, at least, in two well known situations :1) imminent domaine 2) a place of business like a bakery. .
“Likewise, your idea of constitutionality is incorrect. That five or six or nine justices declare something to be constitutional does not make it so. “It is or it is not conitutional, regardless of what they say.”
Again a huge mistake on your part.
Scotus is by the power given to it THE INTERPRETER of the Constitution. They are the one that decides what the constitution say and do not say. They have the final word. You might disagree with their decision as I do in some occasion (citizen united and Hobby Lobby), but in no way my disagreement with a decision rises to the level of claiming the unconstitutionality of the Court decision.
“You claim that refusing to sell someone a cake violates their religious rights. That is preposterous. Nobody involved in the transaction even knows their religious views, if they have any. Religion does not enter into the transaction. Furthermore, it is the government that violates rights, not individuals.”
If a business claims a religious right then religion is part of the decision. And obviously the costumer has religious right even if you don’t agree with them. For one gay marriage is a sin, for the other it is not, it is to God to impose judgment on everyone actions.
Every one has religious belief even atheist.
“Nobody has a right to order someone else to bake a cake for their ceremony. Not gays, not heterosexuals. Nobody. Freedom is about letting people do things you disapprove of. Freedom is not about letting people do only that of which you approve. Think about that.”
“Freedom is about letting people do things you disapprove of.” You mean a baker letting a gay couple by a cake for their marriage.
This why there is a court system to determine the cases that are on the fringe of the laws.
“I hope you will be equally happy if you are required to provide services to the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party. After all, you are only a business, so you have no right to refuse these reasonable requests, right? Businesses have no rights, according to your view.”
A black baker would have to bake a cake for a KKK event. A cake per itself is not a message as long as it is among the shapes offered in the catalog.
An Example where a baker could object on religious basis is if a gay couple ordered a cake that take the form of the act of sodomy or in the form of male sexual organ.
“Still not in prison. Must be because your white.”
Tell us more on how Europeans have the violent crime and sex levels of Blacks (or another Non-Asian Minority).
Sylvain your freedom is to be tied in knots.
Freedom of conscience is what people are talking about.
Rights are legal overlay.
My mother has made wedding cakes for a hobby all her life. Each one made with love, works of art that would compete with the fanciest famous department store in the world, who would, no doubt bake a cake for anyone.
The point is that if she were asked to bake a cake which went against her taste in the general sense, she reserves the right to say no. That my mum never says no to anybody because she’s soft is another matter. IF the person objects they must be allowed the dignity of that objection. People do things all the time and just roll their eyes at what is going on. This doesn’t mean that everybody is okay with what is happening, it means that people don’t want a fight or a scene.
It’s utterly wrong and cynical to take advantage of people’s good nature in the way they do.
These laws you speak of are intrusive and encroach on an individuals right to act as they please outside of criminal behaviour.
Civil law is being used to creep in the back door and alter and control behaviour of people. The only action for someone who objects strongly is to just say no and let the person who is churlish enough take them to court.
Morals cannot be decided in a civil court. The court will become busier and busier as I understand it is and the entire system will grind to a halt.
There is no way that a baker could be forced to bake a cake even if they lost.
The court order, if the baker lost, would involve producing a cake for the customer with any costs and they are not awarded in small claims cases anyway.
For someone who cares about hurt feelings you do give out some very hurtful remarks. Don’t forget that people reading comments who haven’t got a clue might find the comments hurtful. Now, if I were talking to someone who didn’t care about this I’d expect to be laughed at but given that you say people shouldn’t act like bullies why do you say such outrageous things?
Your mom made a hobby out of baking cakes note a company with a place of business.
In her case she could not be sued. A place of business is different.
Civil law always as been used to control the behaviour of people. At some point mixed couple couldn’t get married, blacks could not access the best schools.
The difference his that it is only recently that the law applies equally to everyone including white and Christian.
No people shouldn’t act like bullies but on this blog you are talking to the biggest offender. So I’m not acting like a bully, I’m standing up to a crowd of bullies who justify the worst treatment to people who don’t think like them.
No one on this blog know the meaning of the terms compassion, sympathy, empathy. But they are the truest whiners. For them white male are the greatest and merit special treatment.
Well, Sylvain, you do it again. You cllaim that no one on this blog understands …
That is stereotyping and it is an ad hominem attack.
It is not surprising that your idea of freedom is the government forcing people to do whatever the government deems necessary. People like you don’t understand freedom. People like you only understand rules laid out by lawyers and bureaucrats. You would make a perfect bureaucrat – heck, maybe you already are one.
People like you don’t understand compassion. People like you deserve to live in the USSR of Stalin – you would fit in very well with his goons – you would become one of them. The political correctness that you advocate, enforced by the government, is the of the same form that Stalin enforced. The only difference is that you advocate quashing non-comformity by the destruction of people’s way of life and of their pocketbook, rather than sending them to the gulag. I suspect that if a gulag was available, you’d happily send the Christian baker and the Christian photographer there, whether through hard labor and starvation they could learn the “compassion” that you are so fond of.
I find your last reply a bit strange.
1) You provide no argument in favor of your point of view.
2) Stalin hated gays just as Putin does at the moment.
3) The latest anti-gay law in Russia was drafted by american conservatives. The same with laws passed across Africa pushed by American Christian asking for the death penalty for gay.
4) Conservative American are in awe of Putin’s Russia.
5) The natural law that you claim is the base of the US constitution was not so natural since blacks did not have any protection under it until 1865, but really 1964.
If that law was so natural it would have applied to all human living in the USA including women and blacks from its inception. It wouldn’t have needed the 13th and 14th amendments.
6) The same law you criticized protected the company Hand’s on for refusing to produce t-shirts for a pro-gay events.
And this link is very interesting:
“That dictum was quoted approvingly by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in the most important recent free exercise case, Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which found that members of the Native American Church had no right to ingest peyote as a sacrament. Smith established the Scalia Rule: A free exercise claim cannot prevail against a neutral and generally applicable law — in this case, one against drug use.”
This is the case that brought up the frderal RFRA.
I wonder if the people paying Sylvain to be an idiot on the internet realize how much value for money they are getting? I think the parody has gone too far. No one can be that thick.
Andy, I’m sure that you understand every other word written in the constitution, you know the same way elementary schools do.
I started something?
To Sylvain: Does this mean you are in favor of prosecuting businesses who employ illegal aliens?
I don’t see where the problem would with that.
Shouldn’t they have sued the people responsible for the Wells Fargo schemes
First, the Left doesn’t always win. Second to the extent they often win it may be because they promote ideas or defend positions that appeal to evolved, adaptive mechanisms of the human mind. Just as the adaptive mechanism to eat food when it is available becomes mal-adaptive in a world of cheap always available food, many stands promoted by the Left are political winners but mal-adaptive economically and harmful to ideas like liberty which, perhaps, have no evolved adaptations at all and demand very thorough and strenuous analysis.
I am with Milton Hathaway on this thread. I am not interested in winning arguments with Leftists, but with keeping them out of what I view as my business, and with countering some wantonly destructive proposal. I can join with the Left when they propose win-win policies. I just see very few such proposals coming from them.
Wow, i get busy for a few days then come back to find:
So you agreed with them eh? Interesting. Do your black associates know you consider them 3/5ths a person?
Acquiring property without the consent of the owner of that property is called ‘theft.’ Interesting you consider thievery a right of the people. Tell me, do you lock your doors when you’re out? Even though that’s infringing on people’s right to acquire your property?
Why does the left always win?
Simple because we are not a bunch of idiots like the people from the right on this blog.
We understand simple legal terminology like what is a place of business. The difference between a business and an individual.
We know that the civil right act of 1964 is constitution and was upheld by the court and that since then a place of business cannot discriminate against individual.
We know that a place of business has to sell what she promised was to sell to anyone who has the money to buy it and legally qualify to buy it (ex: you can’t sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 21).
What the costumer does with the goods he buys is of no concern of the business.
Sylvain let them eat cake.!
We know that a place of business has to sell what she promised was to sell to anyone who has the money to buy it and legally qualify to buy it
Not so with the wedding cake. Maybe so if it there was a cake lying around but that would be unlikely. The baker is offering a service for hire. What you are claiming is that anyone offering a service for hire (baker, consultant, lawyer, home improver, statistician, whatever) has to work for whoever comes along. Pure BS. They aren’t slaves just because they want money in exchange for their time and effort.. If they don’t want to work for you tough! Their reason for turning you down should be irrelevant — it’s their monetary loss to enjoy. Fining the bakery was a very bad and dangerous precedent. It’s legalized slavery. You object to slavery but demand it when it suits your purposes. You’re one strange goose.
And Nate had a point: taking property without permission is theft. No one has a right to buy — only to sell.
Sometimes I wonder at what your goal is here. Trolling from the looks of it. You continually throw out one non sequitur after another (Wells Fargo, e.g.) hoping to get into and argument. And let’s face it — you are very bad at the task. Even your responses (when you bother) wander about and are full of obvious errors. You just like being disruptive. The perennial class clown.
If you really want to debate this then try here:
Sadly, I think Sylvain is not a troll, but actually believes this stuff. We know that a whole lot of Americans, including judges, believe that one should be compelled to provide a service, if the person demanding that service is of a protected class.
Sylvain is a symptom of the rapid decline of Western civilization. It is not surprising that this sort of thinking comes from progressivism, since that sad movement derives its original “logic” from Marxism. What is scary is that other Marxist derived movements, like Maxist-Lenism and Maoism have led to horrible outcomes.
You may be right about Sylvain but he rarely discusses; mostly makes declarations that parrot Leftist talking points then moves on to even more of the same.
So true about Marxism and the ultimate endpoint of socialism in general. But to the Bullwinkles of the world: “This time for sure!”
The rabbit of course is Other People’s Money. Get YOURS while the supply lasts!
The great experiment (one of many) that failed miserably:
Not to mention the USSR, Argentina, Cuba … the list goes on.
”Not so with the wedding cake. Maybe so if it there was a cake lying around but that would be unlikely. The baker is offering a service for hire. What you are claiming is that anyone offering a service for hire (baker, consultant, lawyer, home improver, statistician, whatever) has to work for whoever comes along. Pure BS.”
1) The court in the US and around the developed countries agrees with me that it apply to a baker. (note that if the baker weren’t such idiot they could deny service on valid reason like not being able to deliver for the asked date, or hire another bakery to bake the cake or even buy one at the supermarket).
Before 1964, white businessmen were alloyed to refuse to serve blacks around the south. After the Civil right act, discrimination wasn’t allowed anymore. The Civil Right Act of 1964 was contested in Court and found constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Constitution of the USA established the Supreme Court as its arbiter. If you don’t recognize the legitimacy of the Scotus decisions you do not believe in the Constitution. You do not believe in what the forefather wanted to achieve.
If one has the right to disagree with the a Supreme Court decision, one has to abide to it, like Obama did with the Executive Order on immigration (from the moment it was filed to court) and the Hobby Lobby case.
The bakery fined over discrimination was not a dangerous precedent, it wasn’t even a precedent. There are thousands of cases where defendant were fined for discrimination over several reason (sex, race, religion, age, etc.)
The declaration of independence states that:
”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
”All men are created equal” which is something that comes from what is claimed to be natural law (if it was natural and universal, it would have been universal) . Now that statements applies to everyone. And a human being has more right than a virtual being that is business.
Freedom of religion and/or conscience apply to everyone. The state cannot value a religion over another and as was stated in the hobby lobby case, the court is not concerned to verify if the belief are legitimate (they take for a fact that they do).
In any civil case, you have a dispute between two legal entity. In the case of the Colorado bakery you had a legal identity called ” Masterpiece Cakeshop” vs two human being ”David Mullins and Charlie Craig”. The bakery is a business. A business as no religious belief, the owner of the business might, but not the business itself because it is not a physical person. It can be sold to someone with totally different beliefs. It cannot go to church. It cannot pray. The legal entities does provide a cover for the owner, mainly regarding legal matters. The case regarding Hobby Lobby was very different since the case was between two legal entities, a business vs the Government.
You are the one who will be voting for Trump who is in admiration with totalitarian and who is ready to make America their bitch.
Sylvain continues to mumble around in the details of court cases, ignoring the very important policy issues of whether we should have gotten to that point. Sylvain appears to be unaware of any school of jurisprudence other than that which favors progressive viewpoints.
Regarding Marxism, it is an important source of ideas in modern progressivism, and that is why I mentioned it. Also, Marxist movements inevitable become anti-freedom, and there is no way that the modern PC police can be seen as anything other than haters of freedom. Yes, Sylvain can claim that such freedoms should not exist, but Sylvain doesn’t claim that, because that would be admitting that freedom is being crushed.
Finally, the idea that something is in accord with the Constitution because a court, at some point in time, found it to be constitutional, is typical of progressive worship of autocrats. Judges err all the time. Many of them are progressives who have no interest in any constitutional interpretation that is pro-freedom, and who are part of the school of jurisprudence that says that the Constitution is old and created by flawed, dead white men, so we should interpret it in whatever way produces the result we want. In the case of the wedding cake, the interpretation is that magically someone, an artist who creates a cake, loses all constitutional protections because that artist is involved in business. That concept is totalitarian, since most activity in society takes place in the context of business. It also would be a huge shock to the framers of the Constitution, who understood, unlike Sylvain, that you should not lose Constitutional protections because you engage in commerce. You should not lose your freedom of religion, your freedom of free expression (a cake is a work of art), your freedom of free association (choosing who you do business with) or your freedom from involuntary servitude.
The modern progressive religion is one of ever increasing repression. Those in favor of it don’t see this, because they would never do that which is forbidden, so they have no sympathy with those who do. They don’t understand that the religion of the sexual revolution has moved from freedom to compulsion and that the language of tolerance is cloaking every increasing intolerance. They don’t realize, just as the Marxist-Leninist followers in Russia failed to anticipate, that eventually they too will lose their freedoms.
That is what is at stake. It may seem rather trivial that someone is forced against their will to bake a cake. But that is the camel’s nose under the tent. These are not trivial issues. The sexual revolution is about mostly trivial issues, but progressivism’s totalitarian turn is not trivial at all.
If you don’t understand how we got where we are on legal termed I suggest that you sue your school district or college because any diploma you have has no value. A good lawyer could get you a lot of dough.
You are comparing the progressive agenda to what freedom. The conservative freedom? The one that made slavery legal. The one that made interracial marriage a crime. The one that put people having sex in prison for not using the right hole. The one where trust prevented anyone to start a competitive business. The one where people are stopped and frisk (90% of the time blacks while being less than 25% of NYC pop.) for no reason. The one where people spend their life in jail for a small amount of weed (again mostly black, while a majority of white are using).
I guess the conservative agenda is really pro freedom. The best way is to be the country with the largest number of people in jail.
We should not forget that Trump favours war crime like torture, killings of family and seizing oil fields. Yup I’m sure Muslim will become peaceful with a guy like that.
>A black baker would have to bake a cake for a KKK event.
You would support this hypothetical black baker being sued into oblivion for refusing? The courts would side with the KKK and award the wronged Grand Wizard a few tens of thousands of his dollars? Ha! Pull the other one.
Your so-called principles are nothing but a rationalization for doing whatever you please.
Sylain, if “…The state cannot value a religion over another…” as you claim, then how is it that the state can value one race or class over another? What is the logical conclusion to ‘set-asides’? Which is the more aggrieved in the ever increasing hierarchy of ‘minority’ protected statuses? (Blacks? Hispanics? Gays? Muslims? ….[insert nth aggrieved noun/pronoun here]).
Oh, why do I even bother! Social Justice Warriors (SJW) like you always lie! One cannot argue logic and facts to an SJW who thinks in ‘feelings’ vice ‘logic’!
Reagan’s famous quote is quite apropos when dealing with SJWs: The Problem with the left is that so much of what they ‘know’, just isn’t so.
Trump’s doing what needs to be done. F*** all blackies, Jews, libtards and commie Islam lovers. The future was set to become a tranny-loving, homo-marriage sanctioning, abortion-loving, lesbian dystopia till 2016.