July 1, 2013

"Why Conservatives Say No."

"Opposition to amnesty and same-sex marriage isn't bigotry, it's a fear of unintended consequences."

182 comments:

damikesc said...

All we conservatives see are a wave of incredibly bad, but blatantly obvious, "unintended consequences"

Why do I oppose the immigration bill? Because I'm 100% certain virtually nobody knows what the bill actually contains. Obamacare's myriad problems became obvious months after passage --- when it was too late.

Any time anybody tries to push through a massive bill and shuts down debate, it should be voted against on principle.

Why do we not support gay marriage? Actually, I'd argue most do if it was passed legislatively. If the courts decide, then just how much shit is covered by the verdict is unknown for decades.

Who saw Roe v Wade basically permitting acts of infanticide? Even the biggest opponents of the decision at the time had no idea how far it'd stretch.

alwaysfiredup said...

Who saw extending welfare benefits to unwed mothers absolutely decimating marriage in the welfare community?

Freder Frederson said...

His assertion is contradicted by your commenters.

chrisnavin.com said...

I think some people say no because their deepest beliefs and practices as wise and prudent foundations for the laws and civil society are at stake.

For some, it's also quite personal.

For others, it's clear that the people driving change don't seem so thoughtful, wise and prudent, as often as they do ideological, self-interested and not fit for the responsbility of power.

dbp said...

Certainly, the possibility for unintended, but highly predictable, consequences, is a reason to oppose these things. An even better reason is fear of the intended consequences, which are plenty bad on their own.

dbp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

Well to be honest, they aren't all really unintended, especially on the immigration issue. Some are just plain evil with a nice helping of plausible deniability tossed on top.

Baron Zemo said...

Conservatives often say no because some things are right and some things are wrong.

Not everything is grey. Not everything is nuanced. Not everything should be left up to your personal "choice" or "preference."

Eric said...

For me it's about process. I don't really care if gay people can marry or not, but the decision ought not be made by five out-of-touch oldsters in Washington.

Baron Zemo said...

But conservatives seem to be a minority now and if the immigration bill passes they will be swamped so it won't matter anyway. All the wet dreams of ultra liberals like Freder will come to pass and there will be nothing that can be done about it.

Winter is coming.

bagoh20 said...

Most things are not an either/or proposition. Regardless, the purpose of talking about bigotry is to avoid the real issues, because those are pretty tough to argue honestly for some people, especially when you just want your way. "Shut up" is a weak argument, but if it's all you got, ride that pony till it drops.

creeley23 said...

Speaking for myself, I was on the fence about gay marriage until I ran into the constant emotional appeals, ducking of meaningful debate, smear tactics, accusations of bigotry, refusals to consider consequences, the demands that it be passed now now now, constant boosterism, name-calling, and basic intellectual dishonesty almost across the board.

That shouldn't be the way something this important should be settled.

But that's pretty much the MO for Democrats these days and that's another reason to oppose it.

Baron Zemo said...

Many things are an either or proposition.

You are a citizen through legal immigration or you are not.

You are a baby or you are not.

You can make up excuses and cloud the issue but it is basically either or.

But don't worry. The libertines are in ascendance and traditional values are mere bigotry so nothing will ever be right or wrong.

Anything goes.

Revenant said...

It isn't either/or. There is a mix of concerned citizens, bigots, and bigoted concerned citizens.

Regarding amnesty, though, I don't think a fresh flood of illegal immigrants can honestly be called an "unintended consequence". When you know something is going to happen and you decide it is worth it, that's "a side effect" or "collateral damage". An unintended consequence is supposed to be surprising.

Baron Zemo said...

It is always either/or. Yes or no.

Or you could vote "present."

Hey maybe you could be President someday!

Chip Ahoy said...

That did not resonate with me because the whole time I was thinking: Support for wide open borders and codifying sodomy into law is not a desire to destroy society, it is a fear of being viewed as not open-minded, loving, and accepting. And that kind of erased the whole thing.

edutcher said...

Um, lessee now, importing 35 million peons (they'd be kept in poverty and ignorance so they'd always vote Democrat, so it's not racist to call them that) solely to keep the Democrats in power.

That's about as evil, not to mention un-American, as you can get.

Sounds like a good reason to say, "No", to me.

As for same sex marriage, we know the "polyamorists" are already lining up their lawsuits and we've seen how bestiality and incest are beginning to be rehabilitated, so Scalia's prediction is coming true.

We know the same sex marriage crowd doesn't wants legalization or tolerance; they want obeisance.

Some of us have read some history, so we know what can happen when you let the floodgates open and we know support of the nuclear family works (God forbid we use that as a criterion) as a solid building block of society.

Anybody wonder who takes care of any kids born in this mess?

Or do we already know?

But the topper is the invocation of the ACLU whose activities, including making the streets decidedly more unsafe, has helped put this country in the mess it's in right now.

The concern trolling in that piece is a joke.

PS HotAir is showing a new USAToday/Gallup poll saying support for same sex marriage has increased since SCOTUS ruled. Given SCOTUS' esteem among the public is subterranean, isn't that something of a contradiction?

Methadras said...

In this case no means the ever encroaching presence of government into all of our lives. That's what no means. It means stop.

creeley23 said...

No other nation in the world -- certainly not Mexico -- would allow their demographic makeup to be so radically changed unless they lost a war.

More and more it does look like we are in a war and we are losing it.

SteveR said...

Many of the unintended consequences are intended, make no mistake, the ACA was designed to fail, the details were merely to extract some political favors while borrowning more money. But fail it will to clear the way for a single payer system. Immigration bill was to cement the hispanic voting bloc for the Dems.

Balfegor said...

Re: alwaysfiredup:

Who saw extending welfare benefits to unwed mothers absolutely decimating marriage in the welfare community?

Pretty sure Daniel Patrick Moynihan did. Or at least realised it was going to happen pretty quickly.

YoungHegelian said...

Conservatism worries about "unintended consequences". Oh, wow, what an insight. This has only been a major issue in conservative thought since at least the time Edmund Burke wrote on the French Revolution.

I'm not meaning to bad-mouth the article, so as much as point out that it's preaching to the choir at The American Conservative.

This should be on NPR, at the Washington Post, NYT, etc. where it might open up some ears or eyes to some of the basic underlying concerns of conservatism.

Baron Zemo said...

By March 5, 1836, Col. William Barrett Travis had known for several days that his situation inside the old Spanish mission called the Alamo had become hopeless.

Several thousand soldiers under the command of Mexican Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna had Travis and some 189 other defenders surrounded.

The young Texas colonel - only 26 - was a lawyer, not a professional military man, but Travis knew enough history to understand that in a siege, the army on the outside usually prevails over the army on the inside.

So he gathered his fellow defenders that Saturday afternoon and gave them a speech.

"We must die," he began. "Our business is not to make a fruitless effort to save our lives, but to choose the manner of our death."

He saw three possibilities: Surrender and summary execution, trying to fight their way out only to be "butchered" by Mexican lancers or "remain in this fort…resist every assault, and to sell our lives as dearly as possible."

Then, with a flourish, Travis drew his sword and slowly marked a line in the dirt. "I now want every man who is determined to stay here and die with me to come across this line."

Young Tapley Holland made his decision quickly, proclaiming "I am ready to die for my country!" as he jumped over the line. It's hard to picture it as a stampede - the men knew they were voting to die - but all but two of them walked over the line. Co-commander Jim Bowie, lying sick on a cot, asked some of his men to carry him across. Only Louis Moses Rose, a French soldier of fortune, remained behind.

That night, Rose slipped out of the Alamo and managed to make it through the enemy lines. He ended up in Louisiana and supposedly lived until 1850.

Every Texan knows what happened the morning after Rose made his escape. In the predawn of March 6, Santa Anna's forces breached the walls and killed every Texas combatant.
(Line in the Sand, Mike Cox)

Baron Zemo said...

That has everything for you.

Either/or.

Yes or no.

And lots of Mexicans.

Perfect.

Baron Zemo said...

Now of course they say that story is not true.

That Davy Crockett surrendered and was executed by the Mexicans.

Bruce Hayden said...

Still not convinced about SSM, but do back domestic partnerships. Immigration "reform" is something quite different. We would be legalizing tens of millions of illegal immigrants and their extended families who often have little more than a grade school education. They have few skills, except the ability to have children and they would get help to get on the public dole. Why does anyone want them? The Dems do because they tend to vote 2-1 or 3-1 Dem. give them a permanent majority for a generation. But the Republicans? Stupid.

Funny thing here is that we were pushing for a road to citizenship for STEM grads, and esp. those with graduate degrees. In other words, the best and the brightest. Instead, Hatch, in bed with high tech companies, got a big increase in indentured servitude for STEM workers, in H1B visas. So, we would be allowing in many millions of low skilled functional illiterates, while keeping out the best and the brightest, the type who have built many of the high tech companies that have driven our economy over the last 40 years.

edutcher said...

Baron Zemo said...

But conservatives seem to be a minority now and if the immigration bill passes they will be swamped so it won't matter anyway. All the wet dreams of ultra liberals like Freder will come to pass and there will be nothing that can be done about it.

All of a sudden, within a year's time, that really happened?

You really believe that?

Pollsters who didn't tow Choom's line got a visit from Solly an' da boys. You really trust their numbers?

Any more than you trust the "reporting" of the networks or the Gray Lady or the WaPo?

You will be assimilated only if you really believe resistance is futile.

BTW, you want a tough row to hoe, take a look at Egypt.

YoungHegelian said...

Conservatism worries about "unintended consequences". Oh, wow, what an insight. This has only been a major issue in conservative thought since at least the time Edmund Burke wrote on the French Revolution.

I'm not meaning to bad-mouth the article, so as much as point out that it's preaching to the choir at The American Conservative.

This should be on NPR, at the Washington Post, NYT, etc. where it might open up some ears or eyes to some of the basic underlying concerns of conservatism.

edutcher said...

Baron Zemo said...

Now of course they say that story is not true.

That Davy Crockett surrendered and was executed by the Mexicans.


A story written by a Mexican general to excuse the loss of Mexico's biggest state by his commander.

The story of the line in the sand also has Davy Crockett's thoughts on the matter.

He said they ought to just march out and fight in the open. "I don't like to die all hemmed up".

Gahrie said...

Yes, but how do they feeellll?

Balfegor said...

Re: Bruce Hayden:

Funny thing here is that we were pushing for a road to citizenship for STEM grads, and esp. those with graduate degrees. In other words, the best and the brightest. Instead, Hatch, in bed with high tech companies, got a big increase in indentured servitude for STEM workers, in H1B visas.

I think massively increasing the number of H1B visas would be helpful, but also allowing H1B visas to remain in the US to seek work and a new sponsor for an extended period -- six months or so -- after termination. That would reduce the "indentured servitude" aspect of the visa, although it wouldn't help US workers all that much.

At the very least, I think the H1B visa process could be managed better. If the annual cap is reached in a week they could at least auction them off and generate a little revenue for the Treasury.

Baron Zemo said...

[the Alamo garrison is informed that no reinforcements are coming]
Jim Bowie: Well, that's it. I'm taking my men out of here now. Cutting through to the north. You coming?
Davy Crockett: Seems like the better part of valor.
Graciela Carmela Maria 'Flaca' de Lopez y Vejar: Crockett? You are the famous Davy Crockett? You are just a bigot.
(The Alamo, 1960)

jr565 said...

Why do I oppose it? because I don't think amnesty serves a purpose and will lead to yet another influx of illegals.
My step dad came here LEGALLY and went through long process to become a citizen. It's not fair that some are jumping the line and then expecting amnesty.
Further, its the left doing its standard "if you aren't with us then it's because you're racist" arguments.
Why is this an anti hispanic stance when allowing this couldn't be viewed as an anti all immmigrants but hispanics stance?
It's purely a question of right and wrong.
Follow the law. That goes for the illegal immigrants, but also govt. Stop with the sanctuary cities. Same as with gay marriage. If you can't achieve your result lawfully then just flaunt the law and do what you want anyway.

As to why specifically I'm against amnesty it's because of the argument that they're doing jobs that Americans wont do. We supposedly need this influx of labor because of these low paying jobs that americans wont die. Fine.
BUt then if we legalize them, they will be doing American jobs, not the jobs that Americans wont do. Which means that this massive influx of people will be competing with Americans for low wage jobs. And then we'll still need to have people do the jobs that Americans wont' do.Which means we'll need more under the table immigration.

Why would you be fore adding 11 million people to the job pool and make them compete with Americans for jobs that Americans will do (because they are now Americans) when this country can't get out of 7.9% unemployment as it is and low level workers can't get jobs as it is.

If you want to set up a system whereby people being paid who are here illegally now get identified, sure I'm all for that. And if those people want to them apply for citizenship sure. But it hsouldn'be be a guarantee. It should strictly be a worker program where we can identify the workers who are here in the shadows currently.

bagoh20 said...

Baron, I said it wasn't either or in regards to why conservatives oppose these things. It's not either disagreement about the core issue or concern for unintended consequences - it's both.

Lem said...

That was the lamest hippo excrement I've come across since the time-lapse video enclosure you linked to this very afternoon.

Well, it couldn't have been the lamest, since I haven seen any other hippo excrement at all since that video, so there is no other hippo excrement to compare.

So, I guess I was wrong about the lamest hippo manure.

It was yet more hippo manure.

Baron Zemo said...

Jim Bowie: Jethro get my rifle and my possibles ready. The Mexicans are invading. You know what that means?
Jethro: That I am out of a job Marse Jim?
(The Alamo, 1960)

Icepick said...

Um, I oppose the immigration "reform" efforts because of the intended consequences: Insuring a one party state; wage suppression for another generation of American workers; the intention of turning the US into a Third World country with an enshrined ruling class.

jr565 said...

Continuing from my point:

"Why would you be fore adding 11 million people to the job pool and make them compete with Americans for jobs that Americans will do (because they are now Americans) when this country can't get out of 7.9% unemployment as it is and low level workers can't get jobs as it is."

In fact, shouldn't this be the liberal argument as to why THEY are against illegal immigration and this amnesty program? And here I am the conservative caring more about poor people then liberals.

If we're going to make it a point that we are now the world and must host the world, why don't we just expand our territory and make Mexico a state? Then there would be no illegal immigration at all. I'm sure all the La Raza types would be outraged that the gringos are taking their territory, but they seem to want to come into our territory. Cut out the middleman.

I woudln't want to deal with the hassle that is Mexico, so that is not a completely serious suggestion, but it makes about as much sense as continuing to grant amnesty over and over again.

Carol said...

It's just as bad to import STEM workers to compete with American engineers and programmers as it is to import Mexicans to knock our unskilled workers out of jobs. It's already happened to a great extent in Silly Valley.

Why promote this, while exhorting native kids to study science and math so they can make big money?

The tech moguls make me sick, with their phoney ads for a "conservative solution" while they stab us all in the back.

Icepick said...

You will be assimilated only if you really believe resistance is futile.

I won't be assimilated, but the battle is lost, edutcher. Rule of law is dead, civil society is dead, the social contract is dead. It's more over than when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

jr565 said...

Hard core libertarians and conservatives who are for open borders are just for cheap cheap labor. It's just funny how the libs in their zeal to get more voters will throw poor people under the bus in their mad rush to create a banana republic in their district.
Republicans should make the case that they are against this amnesty bill because they care about the poor. And why don't the democrats.

creeley23 said...

The immigration bill seems a fairly transparent ploy to give Democrats a Thousand-Year Reich, and the very wealthy, cheaper labor and bigger markets.

Not so hot for Americans who don't fit those categories.

But hey, Obama promised to transform America. He didn't say who would like it.

Icepick said...

Hmm, and another post of mine gets posted (I saw it down in the comments) and immediately deleted. Apparently I've pissed off Althouse and/or Meade, as that is about the sixth time that has happened today.

Baron Zemo said...

When you live in New York City you realize that it is all over.

Seen the lights go out on broadway
I saw the Empire State laid low
And life went on beyond the Palisades
They all bought Cadillacs
And left there long ago
They held a concert out in Brooklyn
To watch the island bridges blow
They turned our power down
And drove us underground
But we went right on with the show

I've seen the lights go out on Broadway
I saw the ruins at my feet
You know we almost didn't notice it
We'd seen it all the time on Forty-second Street
They burned the chuches up in Harlem
Like in the Spanish civil war
The flames were ev'rywhere
But no one really cared
It always burned up there before

I've seen the lights go out on Broadway
I've watched the mighty skyline fall
The boats were waiting at the battery
The union went on strike
They never sailed at all
They sent a carrier out from Norfolk
And picked the Yankees up for free
They said that Queens could stay
They blew the Bronx away
And sank Manhattan out at sea

You know those lights were bright on Broadway
That was so many years ago
Before we all lived here in Florida
Before the Mafia took over Mexico
There are not many who remember
They say a handful still survive
To tell the world about
The way the lights went out
And keep the memory alive

Revenant said...

It's just as bad to import STEM workers to compete with American engineers and programmers as it is to import Mexicans to knock our unskilled workers out of jobs. It's already happened to a great extent in Silly Valley.

You can either import tech workers or watch the jobs get exported to where the workers live. Pick one.

Icepick said...

You can either import tech workers or watch the jobs get exported to where the workers live. Pick one.

Yes, because those are the ONLY two choices available....

jr565 said...

Republicans need to kick the open borderers in their midst to the curb too.
Stand for the rule of law, and middle america not being coopted for cheap labor and democratic votes.

Cheap labor will cut both ways, when voters relying on cheap wages (which is most of America will have to compete with even cheaper labor. Remember the whole lefty argument about how the rich are getting richer and the poor are geting poorer. Add 14 million poor people to the job market competing over limited jobs and see how much poorer the poor can get.

Synova said...

Is it a "fear" of unintended consequences or is it, rather, the rational expectation of unintended consequences?

Hm?

YoungHegelian said...

@Icepick,

Hmm, and another post of mine gets posted (I saw it down in the comments) and immediately deleted.

I'm seeing this, too. So many times today that I'm copying my message into a text buffer before I send it.

I think I see the problem. There seems to be a bug in the Blogger comment system so that when we hit Blogger with as many comments as we do in a short period of time, the number of comments counter variable is not getting incremented fast enough or for each posting. The next comment in the queue then overwrites yours & then the comment counter gets properly incremented.

I bet this is Blogger's attempt to fix the conflicting edits issue creating another bug. very common in the programming world.

jr565 said...

Eric wrote:
For me it's about process. I don't really care if gay people can marry or not, but the decision ought not be made by five out-of-touch oldsters in Washington.


Yes. I already stated civil unions that give gays all the rights of marriage are perfectly acceptable. How they are achieving the result is what's so galling.

jr565 said...

Baron Zemo wrote:
When you live in New York City you realize that it is all over.
Nah, it's not as bad as that. It's bad for poor people, but the lights are still on on broadway.

jr565 said...

Synova wrote:
s it a "fear" of unintended consequences or is it, rather, the rational expectation of unintended consequences?


That reminds me of when Instapundit always posts the job reports which invariably say someting like "the unemployment rate rose unexpectedly in the month of June."
They always use that word unexpectedly, when we would use the word expectedly for the exact same job report.

As Inigo Montoya said: "You keep using that word (unexpectedly). I don't think it means what you think it means".

Revenant said...

Yes, because those are the ONLY two choices available....

Those are two of the three outcomes. The third is to pass laws that directly or indirectly reduce the demand for labor, so that the workers are hired neither onshore nor offshore.

Nomennovum said...

I say "no" to many things because I assume someone just wants to pick my pocket. This assumption is usually correct, because cash money is the intended consequence of most people's demands of me.

"Unintended consequences" are only surprises to those liberals who never learn from history or experience. We call them "fools." Those liberals who do learn from history and experience only act surpirsed. We call those liberals "politicians," the scum of the earth -- knaves.

Thus, we live in a nation chock full of pickpockets, fools, and knaves. We call this "the Obamanation."

Icepick said...

YoungHegelian, thanks for the comment. Not that this one is going to last!

jr565 said...

There are only a limited number of jobs that Americans won't do. Farming jobs. Maybe some jobs in hotels. Stuff like that. There are many more illegal immigrants than will fill those jobs.
When you watch the local gathering of workers trying to get a day job for a construction site the guy hiring drives up in a truck and picks about 10% of the workers and the rest go back to waiting for the next truck to pull up potentially offering jobs

Meaning, if we need workers to fill those jobs, and those are jobs that Americans wont do we need to tailor our immigration policy around that goal. Filling the jobs that need filling. Not making the world right for true equality.
A guest worker program therefore is a great idea. Lets get people identified who can work at these specific jobs and if you can work then you can stay. We can even set it up so that if you are in Mexico we will post jobs that are needed and if you apply in Mexico you can get the job and the various papers allowing you to work, while there. There will be no sneaking across the border.
But that's it. We're not going to solve the worlds poverty problem by making poor Americans poorer just beause we need to show "fairness and empathy and prove that we're not racist".I can't stand that we're being dragged down this road because of liberals constant appeals to sentiment and demagoguery. This isn't Fantasy land.

jr565 said...

And then at the same time the liberals will demand an increase in the minimum wage. or demand for a living wage. Are they on crack or something?

Rhythm and Balls said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rhythm and Balls said...

Are they also afraid of blacks voting?

So fear is never a cause of bigotry, you say. Glad we straightened that out!

n.n said...

Actually, no. The concern is of known consequences. The mitigating circumstance is that certain dysfunctional behaviors can be tolerated when exhibited by a minority of the population. However, there is no legitimate cause to normalize a behavior which has no redeeming value to society or humanity.

Also, the principal concern of people should be elective abortion and the general devaluation of human life that it causes. There is no reason to believe that homosexual behavior will ever be exhibited by anything other than a minority. Their heterosexual patrons should stop using them as human shields for their cause.

As for amnesty, the problem is several-fold. One, it serves and will encourage displacement of Americans and legal immigrants, at work, at school, at the hospital, and throughout society. Two, it offers incentive to a selective rule of law, which is a cause for civil and human rights violations by government and affiliated institutions. Three, it ignores the causes which motivate mass immigration and migration.

As for bigotry, that is sanctimonious hypocrisy. There is no bigotry without hypocrisy. The effort to prosecute emotional extortion fails when the semantic games are exposed too strict scrutiny.

ricpic said...

Mestizos' bell curve tops out at somewhere between 85 - 90. Calling racial differences in intelligence and behavior bigotry doesn't make them go away. The intended, not hidden or unintended, consequence of a massive increase in dull normals, leaving aside cultural friction, will be the death of liberty and the condition of ruling class and ruled class cemented in perpetuity. Nothing less is at stake and don't the rulers know it!

jr565 said...

How about an Immigration policy based on a quota system? 95% Mexican and then 5% all other immmigrants.
Would that be ok?

jr565 said...

And add to that quota, Mexicans get to jump in line.
IF you oppose such a quota system then you hate hispanics.

Synova said...

Pure intentions guarantee positive outcomes.

Only an evil bad person who hates gays and Mexicans believes anything else.

It's not an unusual human belief system either... at some time or other humans have believed that their pure heart, or the favor of God, would win judicial combat. A conservative might "fear" that a similar purity principle applied to modern politics will result in consequences entirely opposite from intentions.

But purity of heart doesn't require rational plans, purity of heart only requires those good intentions that haters like to believe pave the road to hell.

Everyone else understands that you do good, by wanting to do good.

edutcher said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

Are they also afraid of blacks voting?

Only more than once.

Not to mention the dead ones.

Got a problem with that?

ricpic said...

Mestizos' bell curve tops out at somewhere between 85 - 90. Calling racial differences in intelligence and behavior bigotry doesn't make them go away. The intended, not hidden or unintended, consequence of a massive increase in dull normals, leaving aside cultural friction, will be the death of liberty and the condition of ruling class and ruled class cemented in perpetuity. Nothing less is at stake and don't the rulers know it!

That was Teddy Kennedy's intent back in '65.

It took a while, but he paid for it.

Titus said...

What happens when winter comes?

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Icepick--when Meade or Althouse deletes a comment it will say, "This comment has been removed by a blog administrator," and I don't see that anywhere in this thread. Think it's just Blogger, not you being deleted.

Eric said...

Why does anyone want them? The Dems do because they tend to vote 2-1 or 3-1 Dem. give them a permanent majority for a generation. But the Republicans? Stupid.

The people pushing the bill (in both parties) aren't stupid. They want a flood of unskilled labor so they can depress wages on the low end of the scale. The Democrats are all tied up in their race-centric world view, so it's really only Republicans left to oppose.

I'm curious where the blacks are on this. Are they so enamored with Obama they don't realize this means no rise in entry level wages for decades?

Everybody who supports amnesty needs to take a good, hard look at Brazil, because that's the kind of society they're building. Minus the tiny bathing suits.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Pure intentions guarantee positive outcomes.

But evil intentions? Nah. Never!

We must endeavor to create more despicableness in the world. That's the only way to bring about any good, so sayeth the Synova.

Methadras said...

Icepick said...

Hmm, and another post of mine gets posted (I saw it down in the comments) and immediately deleted. Apparently I've pissed off Althouse and/or Meade, as that is about the sixth time that has happened today.


it's okay, you aren't the only one.

Methadras said...

Stand in the center of Mexico City and denounce any would be mexican interloper that dares cross into the US illegally and watch what happens. Do it here in the US and watch what happens. The dichotomy of reactions wouldn't shock anyone in the culture of PC/Multi-cultiness.

rhhardin said...

Opposition to amnesty is about the people not intending to assimilate to our culture.

Multiculturalism is deadly to every country.

Opposition of SSM is about preserving the word marriage, which SSM is not.

The consequences are not unknown but known all too well.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Opposition to amnesty is about the people not intending to assimilate to our culture.

Kindly identify this Rulebook of American Culture that you're so familiar with? Are there infractions described? Punishments for violations of the "rules" of American culture must be very harsh!

Rhythm and Balls said...

Yesterday I watched a football game on my phone while sitting at a baseball game. Surely somewhere there is a rule of American Culture that would have been violated by this egregious act, what with baseball being the American pastime and all.

Revenant said...

The Dems do because they tend to vote 2-1 or 3-1 Dem. give them a permanent majority for a generation. But the Republicans? Stupid

Are they? I wonder.

If you assume that the people in question aren't leaving and aren't going to be rounded up and expelled -- and let's face it, those are both safe bets -- then their *children*, having been born here, are going to be US citizens no matter what happens today.

Even if that generation goes mostly Democratic, it could be worth trying to prevent it from going 90+% Democratic like the black vote did.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I also had crepes with my apple pie, which violates precept #471 about not doing enough to demonstrate the inferiority of the French.

Rhythm and Balls said...

At the stadium I couldn't find a bun for my hot dog, and therefore stuffed it into a handy piece of pita bread before eating it.

A guy in a George Washington wig almost saw me! There's no doubt that he would have made a citizen's arrest had he known and caught me in this act of violating American culture.

jr565 said...

Holding my tongue.... holding my tongue...

Rhythm and Balls said...

Punishments for violating the rules of American culture include being made to swim laps in New York Harbor around the Statue of Liberty.

I heard this somewhere.

It is not known whether such punishment is accompanied by nearby voluntary sniper attacks, encouraged by the local militias.

Rhythm and Balls said...

holding my...

Or just having a sense of humor would be a great alternative.

edutcher said...

rhhardin said...

Opposition to amnesty is about the people not intending to assimilate to our culture.

Ritmo wants us to believe he's too stupid to know what happened when the Euros did this with Moslems instead of Mexicans 40 years ago.

Then again, maybe he really is that stupid.

He is a Lefty, after all.

PS The reason Conservatives say, "No", is not because of any unknown unintended consequences. It's because we know what's going to happen because we've seen it all before.

To wit:

Student loans are going up.

Why, you ask?

Why, to pay for ZeroCare, just the way the Demos robbed Social Security to pay for the Great Society.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I think a great name for a band would be Moslems and Mexicans. Because they're so similar. Same religion, same language, same sense of affinity with Western Civilization. Yup.

So ed, which parts of Europe have been broadcast on your television screen? It's much safer and more informative than actually being there, right?

Whatever you do, make sure you block off the Tivo part on this waste of space called The Acropolis. Nothing good ever came out of Greece, especially. It's practically an extension of The Sultanate of Turkey - another backwards, culturally hostile backwater of Dar al Islam.

Steve said...

I'm off to marry my disabled son. He's going to need my social security benefits when I die.

If you don't support me in this you are a bigot and a hater.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Steve you're so clever!

jr565 said...

Someone doesn't understand the difference between multiculturalism and melting pot. Melting pot doesn't mean that nothing good ever came out of civilizations that assimilate. It simply means they assimilate.
Assimilation is not a bad thing.

Multiculturalism equals separation of cultures within the dominant culture - ghettoization and balkanization and non assimilation. Bad things.

Look to muslims in Europe for example.Not good for either society or Muslims living in the society. But great for democrats and liberals and racists.

But knowledge is lost on fools

El Pollo Raylan said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
I think a great name for a band would be Moslems and Mexicans. Because they're so similar. Same religion, same language, same sense of affinity with Western Civilization. Yup.

When I lived in Zurich in the early 90's I recall one or two outspoken Swiss reminding me that America's immigration problem was nothing compared to theirs: "At least they're nominally Christians and not antithetical to your values."

Marc Rich was living in next door Zug then and he was not antithetical to Swiss values which included hoarding ill-gotten wealth.

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

Can't think of two issues have less to do with each other. The amnesty bill is literally 100 times as important. The importance of the Gay Marriage is in the possible future consequences and what it seems to indicate.

Amnesty really is the whole ball of wax. It will change America forever and not in a good way. The Liberal Democrats and Big business are pushing it. This bill helps no one but them.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Ok, but Mexicans aren't "nominally" Christians. In my experience they are much more generous of spirit than the majority of the Protestants that I know. Most Latins are. It probably has to do with having larger families and is also extended to the more "established" Italians and Irish living along the Northeast.

I think Weber's concept of the "work ethic" extended, in true Swiftian sense, to a desire for smaller families as the kids were simply seen as financial drains.

edutcher said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

So ed, which parts of Europe have been broadcast on your television screen? It's much safer and more informative than actually being there, right?

Yeah all those scenes of Moslems in Stockholm and Paris are meaningless, right?

News of NoGo zones in French cities because it's worth an infidel's life, even a gendarme's, to go in.

Just propaganda, right? We want to be just like the Euros because they're so civilized.

Nothing to see, move along.

Whatever you do, make sure you block off the Tivo part on this waste of space called The Acropolis. Nothing good ever came out of Greece, especially. It's practically an extension of The Sultanate of Turkey - another backwards, culturally hostile backwater of Dar al Islam.

Have they stopped rioting yet?

edutcher said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

Ok, but Mexicans aren't "nominally" Christians. In my experience they are much more generous of spirit than the majority of the Protestants that I know. Most Latins are. It probably has to do with having larger families and is also extended to the more "established" Italians and Irish living along the Northeast.

Catholics aren't Christians?

Ritmo's "expertise" with "Latins" apparently hasn't gotten to the point where he's heard that.

Keep talking, kid.

You're the best stand up comedy since Woody Allen got pretensions.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Turks aren't rioting to become more conservative, backward, or religious, you ass hat.

Neither has the word "nominally" become meaningless. It means "in name only".

Your reading comprehension is horrendous. Atrocious. At some point, reading nothing but UB40 forms has allowed your literacy to dwindle to a 1st-grade reading level.

Try reading ingredients, for crying out loud. Shampoo bottles. Anything. Your mind might not be the most terrible thing to waste, but it sure wastes a lot of thread space begging for clarifications that even a moderately more semi-literate American wouldn't need.

Pathetic.

somefeller said...

R&B, stop it. This weekend, various commenters discussed the issue of cyberbullying, particularly after Ann Althouse said this:Phrasing things that edutcher doesn't get wrong? If that is indeed even possible, it would be written at an absurdly simple level. That's nothing I'd want to do. I really don't know why you read this blog, but my working theory is you're a guy pretending to be a guy that misunderstands everything.

I'd quote more, but I won't be a party to such cruelty. Everyone needs a safe place and this is edutcher's safe place. I mean look at him. He has so little. Show some mercy.

Here is an example of what to say. Edutcher, you and your comments are valued and validated, regardless of what they say. For this is your safe place and you get a prize for participating.

See how easy that is? Please try to comment accordingly and make a stand against cyberbullying.

El Pollo Raylan said...

I think Weber's concept of the "work ethic" extended, in true Swiftian sense, to a desire for smaller families as the kids were simply seen as financial drains.

I think the invention of the Pill had more to do with that than Max Weber did. American Protestants -- at least the agrarian ones -- had large families too just a couple generations ago. American Catholics were just more reluctant to use the Pill because of RC teachings and practices. Catholic Mexicans just lacked access to it until recently which is ironic because the Pill was invented in Mexico.

Inga said...

Edutcher this is your safe place, blah blah blah and you are valued.

Althouse may disagree, it's her blog.

ken in sc said...

I don't know what the truth is, but I like the story of Davy Crockett, after he lost an election, he said the public can go tho hell, I'm going to Texas. In the next year, I'm going to Texas. It's the new promised land.

Inga said...

Or maybe she didn't get Ed's message to email him with her concerns.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Neither has the word "nominally" become meaningless. It means "in name only".

Ritmo, I said "nominally" because many of the first generation latino immigrants I've had as neighbors are from way farther south and more indigenous in origin. Not at all the stereotypical villagers of a Clint Eastwood spaghetti Western. And many of them are embracing other Christian sects anyway. I'm only going on personal experience here --not googled-up opinions.

somefeller said...

That's probably true, Inga. All the more reason for us to take a stand. Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel? Ann Althouse might, but that doesn't mean others should.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel? Ann Althouse might, but that doesn't mean others should.

She would carefully tear the wings off one at a time and put them in book to dry like flower.

Illusive Butterfly (1966)

Inga said...

Yes of course you are right, I am duly chastised.

But Ed seems more like a caterpillar, one of those big green juicy ones that go splat under a wheel.

I do get not dirtying my wheel on Ed though.

edutcher said...

Oh, cute, the Baghdad Bob of Althouse is back with his lame little gag it took 3 of them to figure out.

I guess Ritmo was going down for the third time so these clowns are going to do the circle jerk all night long.

By the way, if you're going to take a long weekend, why'd you spend it here?

Nobody else wants to be with you?

Rhythm and Balls said...

ed's on a mission to find and kill the man who took his brains.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Wow somefeller, she really said that?

Ok, I'll leave lil Igor alone.

Phil 3:14 said...

Another degenerated Ritmo thread.

somefeller said...

Yes, she did say that. You can find it here at 11:51am. I don't suggest reading it unless you have a strong stomach and it is the sort of thing that provokes immediate soul-searching when it's seen.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Phil, apart from your nightly ritual of penetrating your anus with your own penis, what would you know about degeneracy?

And no, Chickie. I don't refer to orbitals at the same energy level. ;-)

Rhythm and Balls said...

Gotcha. No more than a quick look. I was off to watch a movie anyway.

Michael said...

Chat room.

Franklin said...

"Don't ever take down a fence until you know why it was put up."

Sometimes folksy wisdom is actually...wise.

Rhythm and Balls said...

It's strange to see that I garnered six mentions without even being there. But then, I consider the source.

Anyway, glad you were there to witness and remind us of what happened.

Inga said...

It was epic.

Saint Croix said...

Maybe one of the reasons Republicans have problems is that "no" is a negative word. People don't like negative. Negative is mean and cynical. We like "yes." Yes is positive and upbeat.

There's a movie called Yes Man about a guy who always says yes. Very funny, I thought, one of Jim Carrey's good movies.

There's a rock band called Yes. Imagine a rock band called No. Sounds like hard rock, maybe. Nyet. That's a good word. No is more fun in Russian. Nyet!

"Yes we can!" That was one of Obama's slogans. You really got to be a curmudgeon not to like that. Hope! Change!

Speaking of curmudgeons, I believe we nominated John McCain that year. Somebody told McCain he had to be happy. So he was always saying, "my friends." But nobody believed him. Should have gone with "amigo," amigo.

We have unwanted pregnancies because people can't say no. And then liberals are like, how can you say no to this pregnant woman? You're so mean! Choice! Liberty! Say yes again!

Liberals are not having a lot of luck with their slut walks. Apparently some people don't want to participate!

I've heard liberals are thinking about renaming abortion "marriage" because it polls well.

edutcher said...

So I take it Ritmo still has no rebuttal.

And the Baghdad Bob of Althouse can only cling to something he didn't say.

Aren't you staying up awfully late, BTW? Going to have trouble getting up tomorrow morning. Be late for that "job" at the "office".

I know, you set your own hours.

Sure. Don't forget to clean behind the water heater.

And the She Devil of the SS remains the ultimate hanger on.

Careful, you might end up like Michael Douglas.

Phil 3:14 said...

Phil, apart from your nightly ritual of penetrating your anus with your own penis, what would you know about degeneracy?

I hope this is a medication adjustment issue, otherwise sad...

DADvocate said...

To repeat what several others have already said, it's the intended consequences to be feared. The Democrats want an immigration bill that will give them 20 years of low info voters and depress wages therefore keeping corporate donors happy, plus the Dems are continuing to betray American citizens to the benefit of illegal immigrants and corporations. (And that's just the beginning - it's a bill that won't work, won't reform illegal immigration and will be "fixed" by another worthless, harmful bill.) They're giving away America, to the detriment of citizens, in order to maintain their power and wealth.

DADvocate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Saint croix wrote:
Maybe one of the reasons Republicans have problems is that "no" is a negative word. People don't like negative. Negative is mean and cynical. We like "yes." Yes is positive and upbeat.

that's a good idea for a topic for Althouse. Why do liberals always say yes?

Also, it really does show Althouse's bias the way she phrases the question. Because conservatives say yes all the time. yes to traditional marriage. Lower taxes? Yes. Less govt intrustion. Yes.
Less nanny statism. Yes.
Yes lefty feel goodism that doesn't work. hell yes.
More legal immigration less illegal immigration? yes. Build the fence on the borders. Yes.
There are plenty of questions where conservatives will say yes.

I think the fumpndamental question is why do conservatives say no. Usually its because liberalism is being proposed.

Titus said...

Chick, I thought you weren't going to post here anymore.

While it was a huge loss and no one actually cared or commented, you are still here.

Unless you have some Sullivanist Palin 2008 injustice comment which is so fucking tired.

Please stay committed limp dick.

jr565 said...

Saint croix wrote:
There's a movie called Yes Man about a guy who always says yes. Very funny, I thought, one of Jim Carrey's good movies.

again, perfect example of liberalism. Of course, in the movie the guy who tells everybody to just say yes admits that you shouldn't always say yes to everything.

I guess conservatives are the people who,would attend this show and say, before I say yes, what am I saying yes to? What are the implications. Ad maybe even say, NO.

Yes we can is an empty slogan. Yes we can, what? Change is empty rhetoric. Change to what? Even the idea of progress is empty. Progress to what?

Synova said...

So... I assert that good intentions do not assure good results and Ritmo comes back with something about evil intentions? As if the logic that good intentions do not cause good results means that evil intentions must?

But I suppose that supports my point about the magical thinking involved with a political philosophy centered on intentions, good or evil, and policy based on wishful thinking and the preferred end result that centers on the person encompassing the intentions rather than persons external to the process, beginning to end, of proving how much you care through your politics.

The poor, or desperate, or oppressed or unemployed will just sort of... have everything work out for them... somehow. Perhaps from the magical energy released by all the people patting themselves on the back.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Titus said: Chick, I thought you weren't going to post here anymore.

I was just testing to see whether you still read Trooper York because you couldn't have phrased your question like that based on the comment I left here on Althouse.

Thanks for playing!

Rhythm and Balls said...

I assert that good intentions do not assure good results and Ritmo comes back with something about evil intentions? As if the logic that good intentions do not cause good results means that evil intentions must?

The nonsense of the conclusion, whether you meant to repeat it sarcastically as I did, notwithstanding, most here know that conservatives aren't very interested in reason.

So I'll get to the point: You said what you said as a way to attack good intentions.

Well, no one said that good intentions assure good results.

But if you combine them - good intentions - with good reason, then good results stand a good chance.

Your alternative, to dismiss good intentions altogether - along with the reason that you, as a conservative, never had any use for anyway - is the surest way to arrive at nothing short of an array of bad results. One might as well try things by chance alone.

But that's ok. Bad results reinforce your conviction that the world is lost, and that fear of all the chaos you create around us is the best that humanity can hope for. So let's at least use that to better ourselves.

Don't pretend otherwise. There is no other way to understand the conservative psyche, and I've laid it out in a manner more generous than if you were to try it yourself.

The only question left, though, is why?

You hate boredom, I suppose. And this manufactured tension is apparently the only thing that helps alleviate it.

Oso Negro said...

You have been hearing it from some of us here for quite some time! See comment #1 in the thread below:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=3642637871698569669

bagoh20 said...

"There are only a limited number of jobs that Americans won't do. Farming jobs. Maybe some jobs in hotels. "

I've done both: migrant field work for $1.25/hr - $0.60/hr for a bunk and 2 meals a day, and I've cleaned hotel rooms for $3.25/hr + all the free booze left in the rooms. The hotel job was much better. I actually had to compete against other Americans to win those jobs too. I don't think you would get any takers today for such work and pay, except immigrants.

I'm doing a little better now, so it worked out well for me, but I don't think you could sell that career path to America's youth now. They've been told you must go deep into debt, and check the boxes as the first step in a successful life.

Unknown said...

Steve said, “I'm off to marry my disabled son. He's going to need my social security benefits when I die.
If you don't support me in this you are a bigot and a hater.” 7/1/13, 7:40 PM

Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...
“Steve you're so clever!” 7/1/13, 7:42 PM

Well, Balls, assuming that you would disapprove of Steve’s plan, how would you argue against making it legal? Seriously, how?

Beach Brutus said...

It is often quipped that the definition of a conservative is one that who prefers the devil he knows to the one the doesn't. I think conservative often say no to fundamental changes because we understand that our traditions and free institutions embody knowledge and wisdom that often defy articulation.

Progressives focus on the here and now. They think all that Is past is obsolete, and that which is new must be more advanced and better. They freely experiment with radical changes to ancient institutions and are comforted that they will be judge by their presumed good intentions rather than the broken lives left in the wake of their results.

They gave us a sexual revolution and no fault divorce. In two generations time we have a legacy of broke homes and lives, a fractured society, and millions killed by STDs. But conservatives are lampooned.

Traditional marriage and the mores supporting it was not about repressing sex -- it was about channeling a rapacious male sex drive is a societially productive manner.

Life covenant marriage was given legal recognition, not because of any theological directive, but because that it what was consistent with natural human law. Theology happened to coincide with biology, anthropology, and psychology. No fault divorce created at-will marriage. The sexual revolution undermined the social mores that channeled the male sex rive.

Our result is fatherless homes, animalistic flash mobs, and an amoral society that cannot explain what is right and why it matters.

Baron Zemo said...

Titus said....
"What happens when winter comes?"

The monsters will take over the kingdom. All the is good and warm and comforting will be gone. Beauty and grace and peace will have disappeared. The dogs will lie down with the cats.

And they can get married.

AlanKH said...

Opposition to illegal immigration sums up in four words:

DON'T CUT IN LINE!

Revenant said...

I think conservative often say no to fundamental changes because we understand that our traditions and free institutions embody knowledge and wisdom that often defy articulation.

The motivation may be a dislike of change, but it isn't because of tradition. Blanket restrictions on immigration weren't the norm until the 1920s.

For most of our history, if you could manage to board a ship to America (or walk here from Mexico or Canada) you could live here.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Unintended consequences can be positive consequences. Anyone who relentlessly speculates about unintended negative consequences of same-sex marriage, but ignores the positive consequences of same-sex marriage, is being discriminatory. And any suggestion that they're the ones who care about children is laughable; excluding same-sex couples from marriage harms children. There isn't some big mystery about whether opponents of same-sex marriage are motivated by a desire to discriminate, just as there's no such mystery about opponents of interracial marriage. There's no need to try to look into the depths of their soul, when their position is plainly discriminatory.

jr565 said...

ritmo wrote:
But if you combine them - good intentions - with good reason, then good results stand a good chance.

I think the argument would be that what you say is good reason, is not in fact good reason. And you can see the result.
It depends on what you're talking about, to be able to provide examples, but take the economy.
There are ways to make an economy recover, and usually those are things that drive businesses to create jobs. And yet, Obama did the exact opposite. And we now see the results. A stagnant economy for almost two terms of his presidency. Because his reasoning wasnt to save the economy. He was all about "fairness" and redistribution, and pushing the democratic agenda. And YOU would probably say that that was "good reason". If your intent is to push the democratic platform, maybe. But if its to grow the economy? no.

creeley23 said...

JAC: Well, if we're gong to play that way -- there is no need to try to look into your mind, when your arguments are plainly shallow and dishonest.

But seriously...

Yes, I discriminate about lots of things. A window is not a door for example, even though they both open to the outside and allow one to enter and exit. I could use the window, but I always use the door.

It's likely you discriminate too. How are you on polygamy? A question frequently asked here but rarely answered by gay marriage advocates.

I ponder the negative consequences of gay marraige because the advocates mostly refuse to consider them. We've seen quite a lot of negative consequences from ill-thought-out liberal policies over the past hundred years.

Yes, I'm also aware of the positive consequences. I'm close to some gay couples who are married. I'm glad for them. But there is a bigger picture.

I'm not totally against gay marriage. I was on the fence until the past year when I saw how its advocates were often quite bigoted in their own way and intended to force the legislation through with no discussion and ample accusations of bigotry -- along the lines of your comment actually, though nastier and more emotional.

So. What now?

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

John wrote:
"Unintended consequences can be positive consequences. Anyone who relentlessly speculates about unintended negative consequences of same-sex marriage, but ignores the positive consequences of same-sex marriage, is being discriminatory.
There isn't some big mystery about whether opponents of same-sex marriage are motivated by a desire to discriminate, just as there's no such mystery about opponents of interracial marriage. There's no need to try to look into the depths of their soul, when their position is plainly discriminatory."

but just as you say that republicans aren't looking at the positive unintended consequences of gay marriage, you aren't looking at the idea that some might be for traditional marriage, without there being a negative animus towards gays.

In other words, believing that the reasoning behind marriage as it stood was a positive one worthy of defending from change. You accuse people of only looking at one side, yet you also think that you can look into their souls and glean their motivation and determine that the ONLY reason they might not want to change marriage is because they hate YOU.
How are you so prescient about the inner workings of people's minds?
There are a lot of,other ways that marriage is also restricted. Do you think the only reason for those restrictions is because people hate those they are trying to restrict.
Ann Althouse says she is against polygamy. Polygamists now are trying to marry, and are thus being denied rights that you as a gay person think you should have. You may not think they deserve these rights, but they do. Does that mean that the only possible reason she might not agree with legalizing polygamy is because she hates polygamists?

What if a polygamist made this statement:
"There isn't some big mystery about whether opponents of polygamy are motivated by a desire to discriminate, just as there's no such mystery about opponents of interracial marriage". Are you going to say Anne, who opposes polygamy is that bigot?

Because polygamists are discriminated against. They don't have the right to marry, just as gays don't have a right to marry, just as incestual couples don't have a right to marry. If they are denied those rights, they are discriminated against.

Some might make pro-con statements about whether certain restrictions should be lifted, but while they are in place people are denied rights. But do you think that all those restrictions should be lifted because those restricted are discriminated against?

It becomes a circular argument that essentially argues that society can't define marriage. But of course society can.

Even gay marriage proponents are saying that this doesn't mean that polygamy will become legalized, that gay marriage will only involve two people.

Well wait a minute, does that mean that gays still think it's ok to discriminate against marriages that involve more than two people? Even though polygamists are trying to get their rights now? Is that not plainly discriminatory based on your own logic.

If you asked anyone who's marriage was restricted, be it because the person they wanted to marry was too young or there were too many people or the person was a blood relative they would make the exact same argument that you would about gay marriage. That its discriminatory, that its akin to blocking blacks from marrying whites etc.

William said...

Churchill said that half of what he knew was wrong, but the trouble was he didn't know which half. I'm not smarter than Churchill so I'm willing to let the mills of democracy settle most issues. That said, I don't see how Obamacare can be anything but a disaster. Increased immigration will probably lower the wages of service workers, but, for all I know, that might turn out to be a good thing. Gay marriage? It won't have much effect one way or another on my life so why not.

Steve said...

R Balls, I couldn't have picked a better person to demonstrate my bigot and hater comment.

I don't understand why your gay union is any more valid than my intergenerational union. Would it be more palatable if it was a disabled daughter?

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

I will argue it this way. Society has a right to define marriage based on what it values,and what it wants to promote or not promote. If it wants to promote the idea that marriage is there to promote the family structure that creates the children which will be our next generation then that's what it will do. Marriage between one man and one woman. That's not an anti gay argument, that's a pro biology argument.

So what are the implications of that? Well, it will mean that polygamists won't be able to marry the way they want to. Its not an equal protection argument because NO ONE can marry in a polygamous relationship. (Well, they can if they do it as a private action, but they can't get it legally recognized by govt)

How does this compare to inter racial marriages? If marriage is between a man and a woman, then you have to look at whether blacks can marry whites according to that description of marriage, and of course they can. But even though interracial marriages became legal, it still didn't mean that blacks and whites could marry as polygamists.

Equal protection means that anyone can marry anyone so long as they meet the restrictions for marriage set by the state. And those restrictions are they must be a mixed gender couple, and not a trio. They have to be a certain age and they can't be related by blood. And they can't already be involved in a marriage.

But proponents of gay marriage are arguing that equal protection means that they should be allowed to marry because the state cannot discriminate against gays. Its not equal protection, though if you are changing the definition to allow a couple to marry.

That doesn't mean that it might not be a good idea to change that restriction. Maybe polygamy is actually a better family structure than a traditional marriage. Maybe incestual relationships are perfectly normal and we should all marry our mothers. That's beside the point though isn't it? Can society make those determinations or not, or can we not restrict when it comes to marriage? not just gay marriage, but marriage itself.

If we can restrict marriage, then those restricted will not be able to marry. Whatever those restrictions may be.

jr565 said...

William wrote:
Gay marriage? It won't have much effect one way or another on my life so why not.

but that's not a basis to change marriage is it? If they change the marriage age to 8, but you weren't marrying an 8 year old would it effect your life one way or the other? So why not?
If mothers were able to marry their sons, but you weren't marrying your mom, would it impact your life one way or the other. So why not?
Just because it won't personally impact your life doesn't mean that society must give a license for it, does it?

Kirk Parker said...

Not exactly "fear" of unintended consequences, not nearly.

Much more certainty that either:

(1) unintended consequences have been completely overlooked by those foisting this stuff on us, or

(2) the deleterious consequences are neither unforseen nor undesired by those foisting etc etc.




alwaysfired,

"Who saw extending welfare benefits to unwed mothers absolutely decimating marriage in the welfare community? "

You mean, who besides that right-wing crank Daniel Patrick Moynihan?

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

R&B, stop it. This weekend, various commenters discussed the issue of cyberbullying

The Baghdad Bob of Althouse, the She Devil of the SS and harro all admitting they're too lame to come up with anything on their own is "various commenters"?

More like the Althouse MRDD and now they feel obliged to rescue Ritmo when he can't change the subject adroitly enough (the "reading comprehension" dodge has long since had its day).

Hiding behind a woman's skirts make you clowns look oh!, so cool.

By all means, keep it up.

Rusty said...


But if you combine them - good intentions - with good reason, then good results stand a good chance

Like high speed rail?

Chicago gun laws?

30% tax increase?

Rusty said...


For most of our history, if you could manage to board a ship to America (or walk here from Mexico or Canada) you could live here.

In reality we tried to weed out the criminals, the sick and the mentally defective. We also had vast tracks of land that needed to be settled and factories that needed labor. The benefit to the country being that they became citizens and didn't claim 20 dependants back in the old country that they could claim on their taxes.

Jake Diamond said...

It's bigotry.

Paco Wové said...

"Blanket restrictions on immigration weren't the norm until the 1920s."

But targeted restrictions have been around since at least the 1880's.

Robert Cook said...

Too bad the conservatives' purported "fear of unintended consequences" did not compel them to stand up en masse and shout "NO!" at the relentless and mendacious advertising campaign rolled out to justify (and win our acceptance for) the criminal act of our attack against Iraq.

Rusty said...

Robert Cook said...
Too bad the conservatives' purported "fear of unintended consequences" did not compel them to stand up en masse and shout "NO!" at the relentless and mendacious advertising campaign rolled out to justify (and win our acceptance for) the criminal act of our attack against Iraq.


Look! Flying saucers!

C Stanley said...

Still resonates even though some of the particular references are obscure ror younger readers:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/223549

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "Too bad the conservatives' purported "fear of unintended consequences" did not compel them to stand up en masse and shout "NO!" at the relentless and mendacious advertising campaign rolled out to justify (and win our acceptance for) the criminal act of our attack against Iraq"

First of all, it was the UN approved, US Congress approved, Cease-fire negotiated conditions that allowed for the use of military force to remove Saddam.

So, lets put our Stalinist pals Cookies first lie into perspective. So much for criminal.

Secondly, there were many many many conservatives (of the Paleo and libertarian bent) who were screaming loudly their dissent against that action.

But since those voices are NEVER heard in the MSM or in whatever pink-diaper circles cookie runs in, he pretends those complaints didn't exist.

Cookie is batting .000 right now.

Big surprise.

Next thing you know Cookie will be along to explain how GHWBush was really to blame for Obama's expansion of the drone program 'cuz of secret SR-71 flight missions to exotic locales and secret meetings with nefarious Military-Industrial complex and Middle-Eastern types.

LOL

You can always count on your neighborhood commie to continue getting it all wrong.

How many imprisonments and lobotomies for homosexuals happened in Cookies Cuba "paradise" under Castro's regime again?

How many on the left criticized him for that?

El Pollo Raylan said...

Robert Cook said...
Too bad the conservatives' purported "fear of unintended consequences" did not compel them to stand up en masse and shout "NO!" at the relentless and mendacious advertising campaign rolled out to justify (and win our acceptance for) the criminal act of our attack against Iraq.

I'd love to have the pusillanimous Robert Cook out here for a night drinking beer around a chiminea with a couple of my war criminal neighbors.

Bet he'd rather stay in his Manhattan bubble.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Jake Diamond said...It's bigotry.

You're the biggot, adamant Jake.

richard mcenroe said...

The consequences are NOT unintended; they are the POINT.

Rusty said...

Next thing you know Cookie will be along to explain how GHWBush was really to blame for Obama's expansion of the drone program


Actually I'd like him to explain UFOs to me.
I especially want to hear about the physics that gets them here.

ken in sc said...

Using blacks for electoral fraud is not new. I had a very old relative, long dead now, whose father told him about the reconstruction period in Alabama. He said, during elections, trainloads of freed slaves were transported from town to town, voting in every town. In those days they voted Republican.

Kirk Parker said...

Cookie,

I guess it should be somehow reassuring that you're back in your usual form...

For the record: at the time I thought deposing Sadaam was the best of our bad set of options (completely apart from the question of WMD, which I correctly recall as being only a minor postscript at the time), and I still think so. The fact that the left side of Congress by-and-large approved the AUMF and then immediately started working to undermine our actions there is a different matter, and definitely has to be weighed into the equation. However, I'm not at all comfortable giving them the hecklers'/traitor's veto w/o putting up a fight.

Henry said...

Unintended consequences can be positive consequences.

It should also be said that there are also unintended consequences of doing nothing.

Many things are moving and the one thing you want to stay forever the same cannot help but move too.



Robert Cook said...

"Next thing you know Cookie will be along to explain how GHWBush was really to blame for Obama's expansion of the drone program."

Rusty, you know very well that isn't so; Barack Obama is to blame for the expansion of the drone program.

Robert Cook said...

"First of all, it was the UN approved, US Congress approved, Cease-fire negotiated conditions that allowed for the use of military force to remove Saddam."

Nope.

That's the lie Bush and company told when it became apparent the UN was not going to vote to approve a motion to attack Iraq, (resulting in the motion being withdrawn). Res. 1441 required that Iraq comply with a renewed inspections regime--they did--and that it comply with its disarmament requirements-they already had, years previously. The United States did not allow the new UN inspectors, headed by Hans Blix, to complete their inspections, which, at the time they were told to pack up and leave Iraq for their own safety--given that the invasion was set to begin--had found NO evidence of noncompliance by Iraq, no sign of extant WMD or weapons programs.

The US did not want there to be a finding that Iraq was in compliance, as this would have removed their sole substantive basis to attack Iraq.

So, the inspections were halted prematurely, the illegal invasion was launched, and more than a decade later the catastrophic consequences are still ongoing.

Henry said...

Kirk Parker wrote: For the record: at the time I thought deposing Sadaam was the best of our bad set of options

That was my thought as well, but since then I've changed my mind. The speed with which the battlefield victors lost control of events was sobering.

It was tempting to make arguments for intervention in Iraq that treated politics and propaganda as secondary concerns, something to get out of the way or co-opt so we could get things done. In retrospect that was a horribly narrow assumption. Going to war in the modern world is endlessly political (as it always was) and must be in the view of the cameras.

The final success of the Anbar Awakening and the surge shouldn't blind us to the sum of death and destruction, nor to the ways we dodged much worse outcomes.

In an easily-imagined alternative history, Bill Buckner fields the ball cleanly. In another, John Kerry is elected president.

Robert Cook said...

"Actually I'd like him to explain UFOs to me."

Well, Rusty, given that UFOs are "unidentified" flying objects, there's no certain explanation, as they are unidentified phenomena.

The simplest explanation, the one that probably applies to most such sightings, is that people see things in the sky they can't explain and so they convince themselves they've seen flying craft from outer space.

And then there are sightings that present apparent puzzling attributes and which are not so easily explained away.

So, I can't explain 'em.

Methadras said...

Titus said...

Chick, I thought you weren't going to post here anymore.

While it was a huge loss and no one actually cared or commented, you are still here.

Unless you have some Sullivanist Palin 2008 injustice comment which is so fucking tired.

Please stay committed limp dick.


I liked you better when you were a scat-cock based deviant queen. Now you are just an asshole.

Methadras said...

John Althouse Cohen said...

Unintended consequences can be positive consequences. Anyone who relentlessly speculates about unintended negative consequences of same-sex marriage, but ignores the positive consequences of same-sex marriage, is being discriminatory. And any suggestion that they're the ones who care about children is laughable; excluding same-sex couples from marriage harms children. There isn't some big mystery about whether opponents of same-sex marriage are motivated by a desire to discriminate, just as there's no such mystery about opponents of interracial marriage. There's no need to try to look into the depths of their soul, when their position is plainly discriminatory.


There is nothing wrong with discrimination. Your use of it as a bludgeoning tool, aka hatred, bigotry is another affect of the speech code used by leftists like you to silence those that oppose your desires. It's plain and simple. Your homosexuality shouldn't be used as a means to horn in on an institution or an activity that is deemed of value to society at large which is marriage. The simple fact that you have the ability to marry in whatever state allows you to get married in doesn't engender any known benefit upon society simply because you can do it. SSM hasn't been around long enough to see what if any consequences, intended, unintended positive or negative will rise forth.

People discriminate on all kinds of things on a daily basis. This is no different. Characterizing them at their soul level to equating discrimination against SSM as evil is where you are simply wrong, but then again, that's what your leftist ideology engenders.

Robert Cook said...

"...it was the UN approved, US Congress approved, Cease-fire negotiated conditions that allowed for the use of military force to remove Saddam."

Nope.

The US tried to get a UN resolution to approve attacking Iraq. When it became apparent the UN Security Council was not going to approve such a motion, the motion was withdrawn.

Instead, we glommed on to Res. 1441 and claimed that justified our attack.

It did no such thing. It required that Saddam comply with his disarmament obligations--he had done so, years previously, which we knew, as his son-in-law had defected and been debriefed about the destruction of the WMD and dismantling of the programs--and that he agree to a new regime of UN Weapons inspections--which he also complied with.

The inspectors were in Iraq were several months and, just before their mission was aborted prematurely--they were told to leave Iraq for their own safety as our invasion was set to commence--Blix reported they had at that time found no evidence of WMD or renewed weapons programs. (Post-war inspections confirmed this.) In other words, Saddam was in compliance with Res. 1441, and even assuming for argument's sake the lie that it substituted for a UN Security Council vote approving an invasion of Iraq, (which, of course, it did not), even under its own terms there was no legal basis to attack Iraq.

In fact, by our commencing our attack on Iraq before the UN Inspectors could complete their inspections, we were in violation of Res. 1441 inasmuch as we did not allow Hussein to fully demonstrate his compliance. (The primary reason for the formation of the United Nations, you will recall, was to prevent new wars.)

Kofi Annan in 2004 stated he felt the invasion was criminal under the provisions of the UN Charter.

Robert Cook said...

"...there were many many many conservatives (of the Paleo and libertarian bent) who were screaming loudly their dissent against that action.

"But since those voices are NEVER heard in the MSM or in whatever pink-diaper circles cookie runs in, he pretends those complaints didn't exist."


Were any of these many many conservatives in Congress, where their objections could have done some good if manifested as votes against authorizing force against Iraq?

Synova said...

"There isn't some big mystery about whether opponents of same-sex marriage are motivated by a desire to discriminate,.."

Really?

Just like people who are "anti-choice" clearly only oppose abortion because they hate women?

Althouse the other day said something about SSM and traditional marriage proponents having a clear common cause in strengthening marriage. I've said the exact thing for a long time.

But it seems "not a great mystery" that SSM proponents aren't even slightly interested in strengthening the institution of marriage. They seem most interested in making a statement about equality and never mind what they might break.

(If your given statement that I quoted is obviously true, so is the one I just made.)

The thing of it is that marriage as something strong and worthwhile and useful to society is currently at desperate risk. People may as well simply move in together until they decide to move out again. The actual benefits of creating a unified domestic situation where both (or all) members of the family are secure enough to build together over a life-time is pretty much gone. Instead of a good plan for future prosperity and security, marriage has become a very bad plan and clear risk as a spouse has the power to destroy you and your future utterly and at a whim.

There are clear and compelling reasons other than discrimination for those people concerned about marriage to oppose any additional liberalization of it, clearly and rationally attached to the seen results of previous changes such as no-fault divorce and destigmatizing to the point of encouraging children outside of marriage. The family is disintegrating before our eyes and the only possible reason to distrust more changes is a *desire* to discriminate?

Or is that just the reason that demands the least of anyone wanting to make changes? Because if it's not just people being mean, then someone will actually have to make an argument and explain the good results and propose a common cause to make marriage less... disposable.

Kirk Parker said...

Cookie,

Your 12:48pm comment moves to new levels of mendacity.

We have two real-life examples of countries divesting themselves of nuclear weapons in a genuine manner: South Africa and Ukraine. Iraq's behavior during the UN "inspections" was so very different that it requires scare-quotes around the word inspection. Do you really not remember all the You Can Go Here/You Can't Go Here/You Can Look/You Can't Look games? Really?????

Rusty said...

Robert Cook said...
"Next thing you know Cookie will be along to explain how GHWBush was really to blame for Obama's expansion of the drone program."

Rusty, you know very well that isn't so; Barack Obama is to blame for the expansion of the drone program.


I didn't write that.
I must be getting under your skin.

DinobotPrime said...

Unintended Consequences are a big issue and that is true, but the greatest problems that conservatives have are the intentional consequences which everyone already concluded as unintended.

Geoff Matthews said...

So, one of these not-so unintended consequences is the rejection of monogamy, and why it is a good thing. Championed by that 'conservative' writer, Andrew Sullivan:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/07/02/monogamy-gay-men-lesbians-and-straights/

So, is this consequence worth it?

creeley23 said...

Althouse the other day said something about SSM and traditional marriage proponents having a clear common cause in strengthening marriage. I've said the exact thing for a long time.

Synova: Great comment overall. It'd be nice if JAC returned to reply but apparently not.

However, I wonder about the thought above. It doesn't necessarily follow. It could but it doesn't, so it strikes me as wishful thinking (and in Althouse's case it was also a stick with which to beat conservatives).

I live in San Francisco and know a fair number of gays, including a few married couples. Mostly fine people in my experience and I wish them the best. However, their point of view is basically libertarian -- they are interested in their right to live their lives as they choose, including their right to be married.

They are not interested in strengthening social institutions, which is somewhat understandable since social institutions have mostly worked against them historically, and they are reluctant to pass judgment on how other gays manage their relationships.

What would it look like for gays to strengthen marriage? Nothing likely comes to my mind.

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "Were any of these many many conservatives in Congress, where their objections could have done some good if manifested as votes against authorizing force against Iraq?"

LOL

That creaking sound you hear is the sound of goalposts being nudged along.....

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "Kofi Annan in 2004 stated he felt the invasion was criminal under the provisions of the UN Charter."

LOL

Well, if Kofi FELT that way....

LOL

I suggest you review the cease-fire agreement that was signed after the end of major combat operations for Gulf War I and get back with us on the conditions required to keep the cease-fire in effect.

LOL

There really isn't anything Hussein could do that Cookie can't excuse away.

After all, he's just a simply country murderer who possesses a couple of key requirements for cookies support:
He's a totalitarian
He's not a westerner
He's not a Christian

Bingo!

Synova said...

"What would it look like for gays to strengthen marriage? Nothing likely comes to my mind."

While not making life decisions for anyone else: Apart from whatever doctrinal definition exists, marriage is making two into one and, as a verb, can be used to mean that... a marriage of flavors or of ideas or materials. If someone plucked that word out of a lexicon to describe the marriage of two types of metals, we'd assume that the melding at the seam would be complete or even undetectable.

So... if you want a MARRIAGE then have one, and if you don't want one then have something ELSE.

Gay people who want marriages, or heterosexuals who want marriages, or religious people who want marriages, can all want the same thing which, in poetic language, is becoming one flesh, to leave your previous family attachments and cleave to your wife or husband and create something new.

New... not temporary.

Oh, I understand that sometimes someone makes a grievous mistake and there must be a solution that doesn't involve murdering your spouse but it shouldn't be an ordinary and expected event.

A contract... written out or culturally assumed... where two people (or more) create a new Unit that gives long term domestic and financial stability and cooperation so that one may *trust* that someone will be there to visit your hospice and make your legal decisions into the future because you've not live alongside each other separately but built a life together...

If it's not marriage call it something else.

Synova said...

And, as I think of it...

I think that a great number of the grievously bad decisions made are due to people not considering what they're marrying another person FOR.

Who bothers to think at all, when you're in love? No?

Who thinks... do I want to tie myself to someone who is irresponsible or has a temper or can't handle money to save her life... who thinks of that? But if you're going to marry someone, you should.

Or let it be something else, and call it something else.

creeley23 said...

Gay people who want marriages, or heterosexuals who want marriages, or religious people who want marriages, can all want the same thing which, in poetic language, is becoming one flesh, to leave your previous family attachments and cleave to your wife or husband and create something new.

New... not temporary.


Synova: Gay could do that and some will, no doubt, but my question concerns the likelihood.

Have gays given any indication that they intend pursue the institution of marriage as seriously as they have pursued the right to it?

None that I can see, and I'm not saying it to blame them. Why should they be expected to be any more serious about marriage than straights are?

The notion that gays and marriage traditionalists could go hands-across-the-water over strengthening marriage is a mirage, and one concocted in my opinion as another effort to coerce those who oppose gay marriage to shut up.

n.n said...

The likelihood to say "no" or "da" (or duh) is context sensitive. American conservatives, by definition, are not predisposed to extremism or fanaticism. They are classical... liberals, capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior.

Robert Cook said...

"American conservatives, by definition, are not predisposed to extremism or fanaticism."

So you must admit the Republican party of today is anything but conservative, yes?

Robert Cook said...

"That creaking sound you hear is the sound of goalposts being nudged along....."

Heh. Rather, your claim that there were a legion of conservatives protesting our invasion of Iraq--undemonstrated by you, by the way, although I'm sure there were some who did see it would be, as it turned out to be, a ghastly catastrophe--was entirely beside my obvious and original point, a point I suppose was less than obvious to the obtuse, as I had to articulate it to you in my follow up.

Robert Cook said...

"I didn't write that. I must be getting under your skin."

Don't flatter yourself, Rusty. I often read the comments back to front, and I saw your quote of the comment before I saw the original statement (by Drago?).

Robert Cook said...

"Cookie,

"Your 12:48pm comment moves to new levels of mendacity.

We have two real-life examples of countries divesting themselves of nuclear weapons in a genuine manner: South Africa and Ukraine. Iraq's behavior during the UN "inspections" was so very different that it requires scare-quotes around the word inspection. Do you really not remember all the You Can Go Here/You Can't Go Here/You Can Look/You Can't Look games? Really?????"


And yet...after we invaded Iraq and we conducted yet another inspections regime...the findings were the same: there were no WMD or reconstituted programs. (BTW, Hussein never had actual nukes to divest himself of...he merely had programs to dismantle...and which he had dismantled. The actual weapons he had and which he destroyed in the 90s were non-nuke weapons: nerve agents and gas weapons.)

Hussein was in compliance with his obligations. Blix initially reported difficulties with Hussein's readiness to cooperate--a result most likely of his experience with the previous inspections regime, where many of the inspectors were actually CIA spies rather than UN inspectors--but ultimately Hussein did allow the inspectors ready access to every place they asked to inspect. Given his capitulation to the inspectors, and given that he actually had no WMD, one cannot say that his initial disinclination to yield on the matter justified the criminal invasion of Iraq, a debacle of mass murder and destruction for which we are wholly responsible.