Good example would, admittedly, be the refusal of Texas Lege to take Section 21.06 out of the Texas Penal Code despite the SCotUS having ruled it was unconstitutional many years ago...
Mueller Report Finally Released...
- Thread starter Clean
- Start date
You need to offer pieCome join the dark side of the force. We have cookies!!!!
I'll throw a little unsolicited historical nerdery into this melee. (I can't help myself)
My interpretation: in the US and other English speaking countries, legislating sexual morality and generally being a busybody about how others live their lives (or fiercely opposing such efforts) can be traced back to the English Civil War.
Cromwell and the Puritans were the busybody side, King Charles and the Cavaliers were the live-and-let-live side (they also had cute Spaniel dogs). The Puritans settled New England while the upper crust lordly Cavaliers (along with their frontiersmen/fighter henchmen the Scots-Irish/Ulstermen) settled the South. The Puritan vs Cavalier attitude affected so much, including attitudes about sex, slavery, abolitionism, drinking, brawling, dancing, and social and economic equality. Big split. Huge split.
Then, in the late 1800s and early 1900s or so, religious revivals and nativism swept much of the South (Cavalier and Scots-Irish turf) and imposed Puritanical attitudes about drinking, sex, etc. on many people who has previously vigorously opposed such Puritanical attitudes.
Take the Baylor or Abilene Christian big wigs around the 1920s era or so. Very, very puritanical about sex, drinking, dancing, etc. Very, very far from a live-and-let-live attitude. Their ideas about such things would have been utterly foreign to their Cavalier/slave lord or Scots-Irish pioneer grandfathers, great grandfathers, great-great grandfathers, etc.
This split continues to this day impacting much about politics, culture, etc.
My interpretation: in the US and other English speaking countries, legislating sexual morality and generally being a busybody about how others live their lives (or fiercely opposing such efforts) can be traced back to the English Civil War.
Cromwell and the Puritans were the busybody side, King Charles and the Cavaliers were the live-and-let-live side (they also had cute Spaniel dogs
). The Puritans settled New England while the upper crust lordly Cavaliers (along with their frontiersmen/fighter henchmen the Scots-Irish/Ulstermen) settled the South. The Puritan vs Cavalier attitude affected so much, including attitudes about sex, slavery, abolitionism, drinking, brawling, dancing, and social and economic equality. Big split. Huge split. Then, in the late 1800s and early 1900s or so, religious revivals and nativism swept much of the South (Cavalier and Scots-Irish turf) and imposed Puritanical attitudes about drinking, sex, etc. on many people who has previously vigorously opposed such Puritanical attitudes.
Take the Baylor or Abilene Christian big wigs around the 1920s era or so. Very, very puritanical about sex, drinking, dancing, etc. Very, very far from a live-and-let-live attitude. Their ideas about such things would have been utterly foreign to their Cavalier/slave lord or Scots-Irish pioneer grandfathers, great grandfathers, great-great grandfathers, etc.
This split continues to this day impacting much about politics, culture, etc.
Last edited:
Penal Code is updated every single Session. You should SEE how many new laws we get, either by way of new charges or revisions to language. However, the sodomy statute is a political hot potato that nobody will touch even though it simply makes a change to correspond with a court ruling.
So if I am reading the last page of the thread properly, when a group of politicians comes out touting some "bi-partisan" measure, it really means they had been behind closed doors having a cookies and beer bash?
That may be true of someone who runs for school board or a small city council. If you're running for something substantial (and frankly, life-changing) like the Texas Legislature or the US Congress, you're in full pursuit of power. That doesn't mean your motives are per se bad, but you are fully after it.
I think you're confusing idealism (which you see with new members) with honor. Most politicians who signal ideological purity do so not because they have more honor or integrity than veteran politicians but because they think they know everything. They still want to raise money. They still want to pursue power for themselves. They're still very corruptible.
In fact, they might be more ambitious in pursuing power because they arrive with so little. For example, if the chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee has a chance to take over the Appropriations Committee, he'd probably take it (unless a major tax bill is likely to be on the table). In most sessions, that's a promotion, but he's already very influential. It's not a game-changer for him. A junior member is of limited relevance unless he gets on a big committee, so he's going to kiss every *** he has to and step on whomever he has to in order to get there. The biggest crooks I've known in politics weren't veterans but low-to-mid-level people trying to climb the ladder.
I think that's exaggerated. Bernie Sanders is an outsider, yet he's mostly liked. There are a few pretty clear reasons for the hatred of Trump. First, he's a Republican, and the political class largely detests all Republicans, especially those who appeal to evangelical Christians and the white working class. Second, he's a jackass. He's not just the uninvited party guest. He's the uninvited party guest who shows up drunk and urinates in the punch bowl.
Thanks. I half figured the only response I'd get was 'WTF is that guy talking about...'.
The foundation of "progressivism" goes back to Cromwell through the NE Puritans to the abolitionists to the women's temperance union/prohibition crowd, to Woodrow Wilson--the great godfather of all modern progressives, all the way to the present day "progressives" with their speech codes and political correctness. One constant of the "progressives" is their view of the Constitution and other government structures as impediments or obstacles to achieving their 'greater good.' Another constant is stamping out the expression of views that dissent from their orthodoxy.
Some people just want to control other folks (actions, speech, and even thoughts), don't want people to have fun or laugh, can't tolerate views that dissent from their orthodoxy, and are deeply offended that some person (besides them) somewhere is a sinner.
Cromwell and the Puritans strongly opposed Christmas and Easter. Sort of like the extreme PC crowd among the "progressives" these days...
Also present is a deep, deep suspicion of 'popery' and anything remotely Catholic--back then and now. Our Nation's early Cavalier types (like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Mason, Henry, etc--many if not most of our 'major' Founding Fathers) celebrated Christmas (or certainly didn't oppose it), drank (lots), grew tobacco (often with slaves), smoked, weren't big moralists, cared very deeply about the Constitution and the structure of government, and weren't especially scared of Catholicism.*
The Cavalier types also have a tragic romanticized history of a number of 'glorious' defeats in battle against overwhelming odds: The English Civil War, The Jacobite Rebellion, The US Civil War.
* An obvious difference between most of our our 'big name' Founding Fathers and the House of Stewart is our rejection of the Divine Right of Kings doctrine. Despite this, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Marion, Henry, etc were firmly on the Cavalier side of the Cavalier vs Puritan divide and were no fans of Puritanism.
Last edited:
Yes, very much so. He's not even in their political party. They definitely like his ideology on cultural issues more than they like Trump's.
However, remember that since the early '90s, the Democrats have been dominated by neoliberals - people who are socially liberal but are largely favorable to large, global business interests. That's why wealthy suburbs all over the country that voted for Ronald Reagan are now voting Democratic.
Well, that's not Bernie. He's part of the old socialist Left that make the Democratic Party power brokers and corporate types feel threatened.
MrD
Interesting that you made the point about pols seeking power. I have to include City council in that at least here in Dallas.
There are 3 people running for my Council district and one of them is spending a boatload of money on signs mailers ( I have gotten 4 mailers and 2 door hangers from her)as well as very aggressive on the net. Her ads pop up on several web sites I visit. They make $12.00 an hour but can control/influence city contracts.
Interesting that you made the point about pols seeking power. I have to include City council in that at least here in Dallas.
There are 3 people running for my Council district and one of them is spending a boatload of money on signs mailers ( I have gotten 4 mailers and 2 door hangers from her)as well as very aggressive on the net. Her ads pop up on several web sites I visit. They make $12.00 an hour but can control/influence city contracts.
I agree. If we're talking about big cities, local governments (city council, county commissioners, and school boards) have serious power. They play with a lot of money. There's a reason why John Wiley Price stays on the Commissioners' Court.
Yep. Today's "progressives" are the philosophical heirs of the Puritans, no doubt. But, in a sense, they're even worse. They have replaced the Puritans' belief and trust in an all-powerful God with the counterfeit savior of an all-intrusive and all-powerful (and anti-religion) government controlled by them. Their end point is some form of Stalinism.
Rule by a council of elite, awakened, expert, intrusive, busybody, "gods" who know what's best for everybody else. These neo Puritans will impose their lifestyle, words, and thoughts on everyone else--by coercion, threats, shunning, slanted and revisionist education, and force when necessary. And their powerlust will not be constrained by Constitutional or other government structures designed to prevent tyranny.
Personally, I'm not terribly bothered by people with greed for money and things. I'm disturbed by the people with greed for power and control over others.
Last edited:
Please, please, please explain this in words Seattle Husker might understand.
Chop's not a miracle worker.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I guess you have to admit that they are somewhat consistent with their inconsistencies. Remember- "you must pledge to accept the results of the election?"
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Which findings? The obstruction evidence?
Amidst the political maelstrom, Mueller has handled himself with honor. Tip 'o the hat to him.
Any link to a transcript of his presser this morning? I haven't heard/read it and I'd like to. Prefer reading if possible as I am at work.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Thank you
Clean
5,000+ Posts
I heard on the radio that Kenneth Starr listed 11 felonies that Bill Clinton had committed in his Special Prosecutor's report. Nothing ever became of those charges, but he put them in the report for historical purposes.
Mueller listed zero crimes for Trump and seemed to be implying that his reason was because a sitting President couldn't be indicted for a felony. He seemed to be suggesting that they'd found obstruction and made a big deal out of saying that his report did not exonerate the President, but offered no evidence. His message to Congress was that the ball was in their court. If they want Trump out, impeach him.
Apparently Mueller forgot that even Trump is innocent until proven guilty and Mueller didn't prove ****.
Mueller listed zero crimes for Trump and seemed to be implying that his reason was because a sitting President couldn't be indicted for a felony. He seemed to be suggesting that they'd found obstruction and made a big deal out of saying that his report did not exonerate the President, but offered no evidence. His message to Congress was that the ball was in their court. If they want Trump out, impeach him.
Apparently Mueller forgot that even Trump is innocent until proven guilty and Mueller didn't prove ****.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Someone is clearly not familiar with Part 2 of the Mueller report.
I admit it has gotten pretty confusing now
My Thoughts on Mueller’s Statement After a Day to Reflect
BUT Rush made the point that Barr reported with others present Barr asked Mueller three different times if the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines on not indicting a sitting president had anything to do with Mueller not finding evidence of obstruction.
Mueller to Barr etc, "The Office of Legal Counsel guidelines on not indicting the president had nothing to do with the fact that I find no evidence to charge obstruction. "
Mueller said that 3 times to Barr and Rosenstein etc.
So how did Mueller show up on national tv yesterday and say,"“The only reason we didn’t indict, the only reason is because of the OLC guidelines. "?
Which time is Mueller lying?
he must be one angry bitter dude.
My Thoughts on Mueller’s Statement After a Day to Reflect
BUT Rush made the point that Barr reported with others present Barr asked Mueller three different times if the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines on not indicting a sitting president had anything to do with Mueller not finding evidence of obstruction.
Mueller to Barr etc, "The Office of Legal Counsel guidelines on not indicting the president had nothing to do with the fact that I find no evidence to charge obstruction. "
Mueller said that 3 times to Barr and Rosenstein etc.
So how did Mueller show up on national tv yesterday and say,"“The only reason we didn’t indict, the only reason is because of the OLC guidelines. "?
Which time is Mueller lying?
he must be one angry bitter dude.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
