Alright, I Don't Understand, What Is It That Conservatives Want?

[LiveUninhibited]

The FCC ... but they are definitely not liberals.

Do they enforce Political correctness or do they enforce Obscenity laws?

I'm liberal and I don't like political correctness. I understand why people would want it, I just don't like it. I'm vulgar and vulgarity is funny to me. Seems like more of a matter of style.

Hate speech actually harms someone. Big difference.

Is this an example of hate speech? Please explain why or why not.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgtIqeV-6mk&feature=related]YouTube - Harlem Preacher says Obama got a White Mama[/ame]

And what of this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=617eK2XIaLk&feature=related]YouTube - Best of Jeremiah Wright's Sermons Pt. 1[/ame]

Or this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13OAbgZvNbQ]YouTube - Bill Maher's Hate Speech Against the Catholic Church[/ame]

And lastly (warning - adult language)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPBaOKX7tJQ]YouTube - Chris Rock - Black People Hate Their Own[/ame]

Okay you've convinced me. Hate speech is fucking hilarious, even Wright.

 

[Care4all]

Isn't the Constitutional Argument against Roe v Wade, the argument that this should have been left up to each State to decide on abortion's legality?

Right... but the States aren't allowed to give lesser protections to individual rights than the Federal Constitution does, though they are free to give greater rights.... hence the Court jumping in.

a very very long time ago, i can remember reading some criticism from some legal scholars on the Left, that thought the roe v wade ruling was not too solid....

of course i can't remember precisely what their argument was supporting their opinion on this...???

in fact, part of the opine even went in to saying that r v. w actually hurt the pro choice side...because it rabidly ignited the right, with some constitutional cause behind it....or something like that....?

although many on the right throw the: is a fetus a human that has achieved personhood, in to the argument now, i believe the more germane argument for those against roe v wade was whether the SC had the power through the constitution, to even make their ruling...? or something like that....?

of course, now i gotta spend the rest of the week googling and researching again!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Isn't the Constitutional Argument against Roe v Wade, the argument that this should have been left up to each State to decide on abortion's legality?

Right... but the States aren't allowed to give lesser protections to individual rights than the Federal Constitution does, though they are free to give greater rights.... hence the Court jumping in.

a very very long time ago, i can remember reading some criticism from some legal scholars on the Left, that thought the roe v wade ruling was not too solid....

of course i can't remember precisely what their argument was supporting their opinion on this...???

in fact, part of the opine even went in to saying that r v. w actually hurt the pro choice side...because it rabidly ignited the right, with some constitutional cause behind it....or something like that....?

although many on the right throw the: is a fetus a human that has achieved personhood, in to the argument now, i believe the more germane argument for those against roe v wade was whether the SC had the power through the constitution, to even make their ruling...? or something like that....?

of course, now i gotta spend the rest of the week googling and researching again!

Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, therefore the federal government does not have the authority to regulate abortion. No need to waste a week researching, just read the Constitution.

 

[Care4all]

Right... but the States aren't allowed to give lesser protections to individual rights than the Federal Constitution does, though they are free to give greater rights.... hence the Court jumping in.

a very very long time ago, i can remember reading some criticism from some legal scholars on the Left, that thought the roe v wade ruling was not too solid....

of course i can't remember precisely what their argument was supporting their opinion on this...???

in fact, part of the opine even went in to saying that r v. w actually hurt the pro choice side...because it rabidly ignited the right, with some constitutional cause behind it....or something like that....?

although many on the right throw the: is a fetus a human that has achieved personhood, in to the argument now, i believe the more germane argument for those against roe v wade was whether the SC had the power through the constitution, to even make their ruling...? or something like that....?

of course, now i gotta spend the rest of the week googling and researching again!

Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, therefore the federal government does not have the authority to regulate abortion. No need to waste a week researching, just read the Constitution.

but there are many rights in the constitution of ours that are not mentioned?

i think what the SC's argument was that our constitution protected all women -right to privacy, unless someone else is hurt, and that someone else was not hurt, as far as the present medical science...at least up to the point of 12 weeks gestation, and that up to that point the constitution protected the woman's constitutional right to privacy, and the states could not interfere with such, but after 12 weeks gestation, each state could have their own laws governing such????

or something like this....?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

a very very long time ago, i can remember reading some criticism from some legal scholars on the Left, that thought the roe v wade ruling was not too solid....

of course i can't remember precisely what their argument was supporting their opinion on this...???

in fact, part of the opine even went in to saying that r v. w actually hurt the pro choice side...because it rabidly ignited the right, with some constitutional cause behind it....or something like that....?

although many on the right throw the: is a fetus a human that has achieved personhood, in to the argument now, i believe the more germane argument for those against roe v wade was whether the SC had the power through the constitution, to even make their ruling...? or something like that....?

of course, now i gotta spend the rest of the week googling and researching again!

Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, therefore the federal government does not have the authority to regulate abortion. No need to waste a week researching, just read the Constitution.

but there are many rights in the constitution of ours that are not mentioned?

i think what the SC's argument was that our constitution protected all women -right to privacy, unless someone else is hurt, and that someone else was not hurt, as far as the present medical science...at least up to the point of 12 weeks gestation, and that up to that point the constitution protected the woman's constitutional right to privacy, and the states could not interfere with such, but after 12 weeks gestation, each state could have their own laws governing such????

or something like this....?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment

Since the power to regulate abortion is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, it is reserved to the States or to the people.

 

[johnrocks]

Libertarians are people who used to be conservatives or liberals, who now suspect they'll never have anyone they really want to vote for in their lifetimes.

I'd disagree with this. I've never been a liberal or a conservative, and I think you either believe in liberty or you think that some facet of liberty should be regulated. Though I may agree with the last part.

Perhaps you have never been one but 30 years ago I was considered a "staunch conservative", now all these years later;without changing on a damn issue, I'm called a Libertarian. Go figure

I'm sure you've heard of Robert A. "Mr. Republican" Taft, this is one of my favorite quotes of his. It also speaks for me....

"When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as “free enterprise.” I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live; the liberty of the family to decide how they wish to live, what they want to eat for breakfast and for dinner, and how they wish to spend their time; liberty of a man to develop his ideas and get other people to teach those ideas, if he can convince them that they have some value to the world; liberty of every local community to decide how its children shall be educated, how its local services shall be run, and who its local leaders shall be; liberty of a man to choose his own occupation; and liberty of a man to run his own business as he thinks it ought to be run, as long as he does not interfere with the right of other people to do the same thing".

 

[Sinatra]

Libertarians are people who used to be conservatives or liberals, who now suspect they'll never have anyone they really want to vote for in their lifetimes.

I'd disagree with this. I've never been a liberal or a conservative, and I think you either believe in liberty or you think that some facet of liberty should be regulated. Though I may agree with the last part.

Perhaps you have never been one but 30 years ago I was considered a "staunch conservative", now all these years later;without changing on a damn issue, I'm called a Libertarian. Go figure

I'm sure you've heard of Robert A. "Mr. Republican" Taft, this is one of my favorite quotes of his. It also speaks for me....

"When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as “free enterprise.” I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live; the liberty of the family to decide how they wish to live, what they want to eat for breakfast and for dinner, and how they wish to spend their time; liberty of a man to develop his ideas and get other people to teach those ideas, if he can convince them that they have some value to the world; liberty of every local community to decide how its children shall be educated, how its local services shall be run, and who its local leaders shall be; liberty of a man to choose his own occupation; and liberty of a man to run his own business as he thinks it ought to be run, as long as he does not interfere with the right of other people to do the same thing".

Taft broke up more trusts than did Teddy!

 

[Care4all]

Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, therefore the federal government does not have the authority to regulate abortion. No need to waste a week researching, just read the Constitution.

but there are many rights in the constitution of ours that are not mentioned?

i think what the SC's argument was that our constitution protected all women -right to privacy, unless someone else is hurt, and that someone else was not hurt, as far as the present medical science...at least up to the point of 12 weeks gestation, and that up to that point the constitution protected the woman's constitutional right to privacy, and the states could not interfere with such, but after 12 weeks gestation, each state could have their own laws governing such????

or something like this....?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment

Since the power to regulate abortion is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, it is reserved to the States or to the people.

How about the power to ensure the right to prvacy, you skipped over that...?

But did the supreme court have the right to rule on this based on our constitutional right to privacy....?

For the first 200 years of America, common law was followed on this in which the government or Law did not get involved in a woman's right to choose to abort up until the point of quickening, the point where the baby becomes active, probably about 4 months is my guess....

it wasn't until the mid 1800's before our states started writing their own Abortion laws governing it, exchanging Common Law for their own.

So when our Constitution was writen, in ALL states, abortion was a Woman's choice, up until the point of quickening.

i need to read the majority and minority views on roe v wade to thoroughly understand this....

I am NOT saying with any certainty that you are wrong on this....i just don't know, one way or the other, at least not yet.

care

 

[johnrocks]

I'd disagree with this. I've never been a liberal or a conservative, and I think you either believe in liberty or you think that some facet of liberty should be regulated. Though I may agree with the last part.

Perhaps you have never been one but 30 years ago I was considered a "staunch conservative", now all these years later;without changing on a damn issue, I'm called a Libertarian. Go figure

I'm sure you've heard of Robert A. "Mr. Republican" Taft, this is one of my favorite quotes of his. It also speaks for me....

"When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as “free enterprise.” I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live; the liberty of the family to decide how they wish to live, what they want to eat for breakfast and for dinner, and how they wish to spend their time; liberty of a man to develop his ideas and get other people to teach those ideas, if he can convince them that they have some value to the world; liberty of every local community to decide how its children shall be educated, how its local services shall be run, and who its local leaders shall be; liberty of a man to choose his own occupation; and liberty of a man to run his own business as he thinks it ought to be run, as long as he does not interfere with the right of other people to do the same thing".

Taft broke up more trusts than did Teddy!

The Taft I'm referring to never was President.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Alright, I Don't Understand, What Is It That Conservatives Want?

Let me be brief and simple about this.

A federal government that does virtually nothing except maintain a massive standing military.



I used to think they believed the federal government should also enforce criminal laws and civil rights. But, I've seen too much cheerleading for torture, and for diminishing the fourth amendment and habeus corpus to buy that BS anymore.

ROFL... Well the reason you 'fee' this way RD is you're ignorant of what civil rights are... You confuse 'civil rights' with human rights... Civil rights are those rights which CIVILIANS enjoy...they are the 'rights within the CIVIL order.'

That naturally EXCLUDES ILLEGAL COMBATANTS... Combatants do not enjoy 'civil rights'... and due to the nature of ILEGAL COMBATANTS, where they have taken overt action, to publicly advocate or otherwise PROMOTE the MASS MURDER OH INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS and through the very EXISTANCE; threaten innocent civilians and NOT SO INNOCENT CIVILIANS through their ONLY Tactical advantage: to hide in and AMONG women and children FOR THE PURPOSES OF USING THOSE INNOCENTS AS HUMAN SHIELDS... and in so doing FOREIT THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS; as a result of their having exercised their human rights to the detriment of the rights of others.

Thus the illegal combatants HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS... Neither CIVIL, NOR HUMAN...

And if you understood the principles on which Human and Civil rights are founded, you'd know that... but you're slap ignorant of of those principles as you've repeatedly proven.

You feel that you're enlightened, ya can't explain what that emlightenment means, ya think that people JUST HAVE RIGHTS... no matter what they do... No matter how they act... which is why when people like you are allowed to have a say in cultural values... those cultures are lead directly to ruin, as is the case with most if not all Western cultures; they're succumbing to the virulent effects of being governed absent sound principle.

This crying over the mythical abuse of rightless mass murderers is only one of innumerable examples...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

although many on the right throw the: is a fetus a human that has achieved personhood, in to the argument now, i believe the more germane argument for those against roe v wade was whether the SC had the power through the constitution, to even make their ruling...? or something like that....?

of course, now i gotta spend the rest of the week googling and researching again!

"Personhood" is a myth advanced by the Secular-Left which seeks to rationalize the unjustified taking of pre-natal life... There is no valid principle which even repotely suggest that "Personhood" trumps INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE. PERIOD

And FTR: The SC has NO POWER... Do you even OWN A DICTIONARY?

The SCOTUS is authorized to determine CONSTITUTIONALITY of LAWS and judicial decisions which are being contested and heard by the COURT.

The SCOTUS is NOT AUTHORIZED TO MAKE LAW... that AUTHORITY rests PURELY with the LEGISLATURE.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Right... but the States aren't allowed to give lesser protections to individual rights than the Federal Constitution does, though they are free to give greater rights.... hence the Court jumping in.

a very very long time ago, i can remember reading some criticism from some legal scholars on the Left, that thought the roe v wade ruling was not too solid....

of course i can't remember precisely what their argument was supporting their opinion on this...???

in fact, part of the opine even went in to saying that r v. w actually hurt the pro choice side...because it rabidly ignited the right, with some constitutional cause behind it....or something like that....?

although many on the right throw the: is a fetus a human that has achieved personhood, in to the argument now, i believe the more germane argument for those against roe v wade was whether the SC had the power through the constitution, to even make their ruling...? or something like that....?

of course, now i gotta spend the rest of the week googling and researching again!

Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, therefore the federal government does not have the authority to regulate abortion. No need to waste a week researching, just read the Constitution.

Actually, it is the Constitutional mandate of the US Federal government to promote the general welfare and to provide for the common defense, of it's citizenry. Thus the US Federal government is mandated to defend innocent amongst that citizenry from the misuse of power, which would take or threaten innocent human life.

What human life is more innocent than that which has yet to even be presented with the MEANS to so much as OFFEND another... let along exercise their rights to the detriment of another?

Roe was not just bad jurisprudence, it was BAD JUDGMENT ON A SCALE UNTO ITSELF... Roe determined that ONE human being has the RIGHT to take the life of an INNOCENT HUMAN BEING ON THE JUSTIFICATION THAT SUCH HUMAN LIFE IS AN INCONVENIENCE... and THIS: DESPITE THE INCONTRAVERTIBLE FACT; that the erroneously 'rightful human being KNOWLINGLY CHOSE TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITY WHICH WAS DESIGNED FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO CONCEIVE THAT HUMAN LIFE.

Roe is a function of pure evil... it promotes INJUSTICE, and holds it up as an example of SUPREME JUSTICE.

 

[AllieBaba]

You gotta love it when the courts decide the majority doesn't get a say.

 

[Care4all]

a very very long time ago, i can remember reading some criticism from some legal scholars on the Left, that thought the roe v wade ruling was not too solid....

of course i can't remember precisely what their argument was supporting their opinion on this...???

in fact, part of the opine even went in to saying that r v. w actually hurt the pro choice side...because it rabidly ignited the right, with some constitutional cause behind it....or something like that....?

although many on the right throw the: is a fetus a human that has achieved personhood, in to the argument now, i believe the more germane argument for those against roe v wade was whether the SC had the power through the constitution, to even make their ruling...? or something like that....?

of course, now i gotta spend the rest of the week googling and researching again!

Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, therefore the federal government does not have the authority to regulate abortion. No need to waste a week researching, just read the Constitution.

Actually, it is the Constitutional mandate of the US Federal government to promote the general welfare and to provide for the common defense, of it's citizenry. Thus the US Federal government is mandated to defend innocent amongst that citizenry from the misuse of power, which would take or threaten innocent human life.

What human life is more innocent than that which has yet to even be presented with the MEANS to so much as OFFEND another... let along exercise their rights to the detriment of another?

Roe was not just bad jurisprudence, it was BAD JUDGMENT ON A SCALE UNTO ITSELF... Roe determined that ONE human being has the RIGHT to take the life of an INNOCENT HUMAN BEING ON THE JUSTIFICATION THAT SUCH HUMAN LIFE IS AN INCONVENIENCE... and THIS: DESPITE THE INCONTRAVERTIBLE FACT; that the erroneously 'rightful human being KNOWLINGLY CHOSE TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITY WHICH WAS DESIGNED FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO CONCEIVE THAT HUMAN LIFE.

Roe is a function of pure evil... it promotes INJUSTICE, and holds it up as an example of SUPREME JUSTICE.

I don't think so PI

why didn't our founding father's say such? If they felt that the unborn in its earliest stages were on equal footing with the born already mother and her right to keep any of this private....... wouldn't they have given the unborn the same rights as the born...?

when they were writing the constitution, don't you think they should have specified such?

and SINCE they DIDN'T, and they KNEW all the states were following Common Law on this, where it was only a crime if the abortion took place after the mother's 4th month, or after quickening....it means one of 2 things to me, first...they either believed that this was totally up to the States, or 2, they did not have an issue on Common Law regarding this, no?

(FYI
Abortion up until quickening, about the 4th month of pregnancy, was not regulated or legislated by our government, after the point of quickening, in a woman's pregnancy, it was considered a felony....for the person performing the abortion on the pregnant woman, and then later in the mid 1800's Common law became stricter on this and i believe went on to include the woman in a felony charge.

The State governments didn't say it was okay to have an abortion prior to quickening and the government didn't say it was not okay to have an abortion prior to quickening, they were silent and had nothing to say, but they did accept Common Law's legislation regarding this issue after the point of quickening with penalties etc...

there was nothing discussed Federally on this, by our founding father's or even afterwards and i/m leaning towards them thinking it was a State's issue perhaps?)

 

[Sinatra]

This is what conservatives want...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo9buo9Mtos&feature=related]YouTube - Conan - What is Best in Life[/ame]

 

[johnrocks]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7E1AotdxqU]YouTube - Alice Cooper - Freedom[/ame]

 

[Cecilie1200]

Perhaps you should learn to read between the lines and interpret what you see on the news. Are you unaware that colleges across the nation have "free speech zones", special areas where you are allowed to openly speak your mind, rather than havin your speech regulated by "hate speech" restrictions? I promise you, none of those rules concerning hate speech are aimed at protecting CONSERVATIVE groups from being offended, and I think you're smart enough to realize it.

I went to college and saw "FAG" spray painted on the walls of the one of the university buildings. People were expelled for calling the black people '******'. A death threat was emailed to an openly lesbian professor. And that was only my first semester at Colorado University at Boulder!

That's why we have laws against hate speech. So people can attend school without fear of persecution, even if it is just social.

And CU was a mostly, surprisingly, conservative school. No, its no Oral Roberts, but it isn't UC Berkeley either. Most of the students came from money and had inherited, as many of us do, their parents' political persectives. I didn't see anyone calling out conservative slanders. Is that hate speech to call someone a racist? What if they are a racist? Should we PC about it? Prejudicially Oriented? Should we call people fascists? Isn't it just an adjective for a proponent of a particular political philosophy?

What's the difference between those words and ****** or fag? Did anyone persecute fascists or racists? Were they lynched or beaten to death? Were they enslaved for 400 years? Is there a different power in the words ****** or fag than there is in racist or fascist? What about red-neck? Bible-thumper? Hill-billy? Ignoramus? Christ-lover?

I understand WHY liberals think it's a good idea to restrict the free speech of some. That's not the point. The point is that blacks and homosexuals are liberal protected groups. Those hate-speech rules don't apply to conservative groups. Christians don't receive any sort of protection like that, and neither do people who are openly conservative. College conservative newspapers are routinely stolen and destroyed, and on several occasions, university officials have not only publicly condoned such behavior, but once that I know of actually attended a public burning of issues of the campus conservative paper.

Go ahead and wrack your brain trying to think of an occasion when a college or public school has enforced hate-speech gag orders to protect a conservative. Let me know if you come up with any.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The only kind of "harm" speech can do is to offend.

I used to think that, too. But then I heard about a black student going to a primarily white school and being called ****** constantly by his fellow classmates. He eventually couldn't take it anymore and dropped out. What if your child or you were put into that kind of situation?

After hearing that I thought, "Minorities should be protected from that kind of behavior".

And, anyway, we're getting off topic. Back to conservatism.

How do conservatives feel about their party's role in attempting to thwart civil rights and women's suffrage?

That's always the problem with liberals. They think, "That's a bad thing. The world shouldn't be that way", and then leap to the conclusion that it's the government's job to make the universe all candy and puppies for everyone. The problem with this is twofold: one, you cannot correct or prevent every unpleasantness in life, certainly not by the equivalent of trying to legislate that everyone has to be a nice person, and attempting to make life nice and happy and pain-free for one group by encroaching on the rights of another group merely spreads the misery around.

FYI, you need to make the differentiation between "conservatives" and "Republicans". Conservatives don't have any "their party", technically speaking.

What role is it that you've been indoctrinated into believing Republicans played in "attempting to thwart civil rights and women's suffrage"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I used to think that, too. But then I heard about a black student going to a primarily white school and being called ****** constantly by his fellow classmates. He eventually couldn't take it anymore and dropped out. What if your child or you were put into that kind of situation?

After hearing that I thought, "Minorities should be protected from that kind of behavior".

And, anyway, we're getting off topic. Back to conservatism.

How do conservatives feel about their party's role in attempting to thwart civil rights and women's suffrage?

Thwart civil rights, and women's suffrage? Hmmm that's a new one on me. I didn't know conservatives were doing that. Could you explain that so I know exactly what your talking about?

Historically the people who did that were, at the time, considered conservative by some definitions. At the very least the definition that conservatives want to maintain either the status quo or tradition. Those who were opposed to the Civil Rights Movement. Were they liberal or conservative or other? I'd think conservative, but that doesn't necessarily say much about today's conservatives in itself.

I like that. "More Republicans than Democrats fought for and supported civil rights, but since we considered the guys who opposed it to be conservative, you get to be guilty by association based on what WE THOUGHT, rather than on what YOUR PARTY ACTUALLY DID."

Only in liberal Lalaland are their diseased imaginings thought to constitute reality.

 

[DiamondDave]

Maybe he should understand and relook at exactly which party was standing in the way of the civil rights movement

The propaganda, sloganeering, and posting of liberal misconceptions continues