Conservatism...

[Working Man]

Saw him on the tube last night. Not 100 percent behind GW's policies, and direction. Interesting points of view. I am not normally a supporter/follower of what he has to say, but it was interesting for the brief interview.

 

[red states rule]

Saw him on the tube last night. Not 100 percent behind GW's policies, and direction. Interesting points of view. I am not normally a supporter/follower of what he has to say, but it was interesting for the brief interview.

Remember. conservatives will openly admit they are ocnservatives.

Most liberals will deny they are liberals. They know they cannot run as liberals and win national elections

 

[William Joyce]

Remember. conservatives will openly admit they are ocnservatives.

Most liberals will deny they are liberals. They know they cannot run as liberals and win national elections

True.

Bully, I'm happy to hear you've discovered some conservative true fonts, Burnham, Goldwater and (sorta) George Will. One thing that makes me want to scream is when I hear some liberal punk start in how George W. Bush is a "conservative." Sorry, Karl Marx (not the USMB one) was more of a conservative than Bush. Really. Hate Bush or love him, but PLEASE don't call him a "conservative." There is nothing "conservative" about unending war in the Middle East for Israel's sake, open borders with Mexico and the rest of the Third World, runaway spending or the "No Child Left Behind" act.

For more true conservative thought, check out Russell Kirk.

 

[red states rule]

True.

Bully, I'm happy to hear you've discovered some conservative true fonts, Burnham, Goldwater and (sorta) George Will. One thing that makes me want to scream is when I hear some liberal punk start in how George W. Bush is a "conservative." Sorry, Karl Marx (not the USMB one) was more of a conservative than Bush. Really. Hate Bush or love him, but PLEASE don't call him a "conservative." There is nothing "conservative" about unending war in the Middle East for Israel's sake, open borders with Mexico and the rest of the Third World, runaway spending or the "No Child Left Behind" act.

For more true conservative thought, check out Russell Kirk.

or Thomas Sowell.

 

[Mr.Conley]

If we interpret the US Constitution based on the mores and evils of the day in which the Founding Fathers lived, the left would be seriously screwed.

Ironically, while it is the left who revere the Founding Fathers in word, they are also the ones to remove all context and/or intent from the law in order to frame new, literal definitions that suit their causes. It's made a mockery of our laws, and includes intent only selectively, or in a skewed version.

This entire section appears to be nothing more than a gut, antiliberal rant totally unrelated to the topic at hand. Moving on

I think reading and comprehending the law, as written, in the context in which it is written is what is important. Selective comprehension of the law and/or intent is a travesty, and it is THAT practice that I responded to. Quoting select Founding Fathers out of context is the basis for several liberal arguments.

In many ways I agree with you, but I believe you're position in impractical. If we don't have rights outside of the Constitution, and the government can only perform duties explicitly outlined in the Constitution, then even an idealized Conservative government would prove unable to manage the country. Back at the beginning of the country, when Jefferson first assumed the Presidency, he had to debate whether the Constitution allowed him to buy Louisiana from the French. There are just so many issues that we face in the modern day that the Constitution does not even touch on. For example the internet. Although the internet was originally a DoD project, its subsequent commercialization across the globe raises numerous questions. Can the United States government regulate the internet, an entity that technically doesn't even exist within the US. Does the Constitution grant the government the right to censor or warn against illicit content? How do the states factor into the smooth running of the web? None of these topics is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. A certain degree of implicit reasoning and material from other sources is needed inorder to decide many modern issues.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Remember. conservatives will openly admit they are ocnservatives.

Most liberals will deny they are liberals. They know they cannot run as liberals and win national elections

Sadly, conservatives these days are little more than authoritarian, tin-pot, dictator wannabes dressed in elephant hides.

 

[William Joyce]

Sadly, conservatives these days are little more than authoritarian, tin-pot, dictator wannabes dressed in elephant hides.

Unlike the liberals, who show by way of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao that their dictators aren't "wannabes," they're the real thing!

 

[Mr.Conley]

Unlike the liberals, who show by way of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao that their dictators aren't "wannabes," they're the real thing!

And here I was thinking that Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were communists. Silly me!

 

[Bullypulpit]

But you keep on being a typical Dem/liberal. Sitting in your corner lashing blindly out at anything that doesn't agree with you or what you want to do is what we have come to expect.

Actually, "...lashing blindly out at anything that doesn't agree with you or what you want to do..." has become the hallmark of conservative thought these days. We need look no further than to the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative Republican noise machine for the proof of that pudding.

And all of those poor Republican Representatives and Senators whose delicate constitutions were upset by the DCCC's use of images of flag draped coffins...Mercy sakes alive! Never mind Republican use of images of 9/11 used in its ad campaigns for the 2004 election.

So leave off with the cheap insults, you sound like a whiny liberal.

 

[Abbey Normal]

...
So leave off with the cheap insults, you sound like a whiny liberal.

I'm gald to see you realize and admit that these two things go hand in hand.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Lest you forget, under Goatboy's administration, Democrats eliminated the budget deficit and left the nation with a $230 billion budget surplus in fiscal year 2000. For fiscal 2006, America has the fourth largest budget deficit in its history, $296 billion. Deficits are irrelevant to the current crop of Republicans, an abandonment of one of the core planks of a truly conservative platform...Fiscal responsibility.

And that's what it's really all about, isn't it...The Republicans have never forgiven the Democrats, in the person of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for the New Deal that lifted America from the Great Depression.

The deficit was definitely smaller during the Clinton years, but it was never eliminated, that is accounting fiction that would get corporate accountants thrown in jail for fraud if they tried it.

The New Deal did not lift america out of the great depression. In fact, it made the depression worse.

I do agree that many conservatives have drifted far from what conservatism used to mean--from just 10 years ago, much less 50 years ago when being right wing meant that you were against foreign interventionism.

 

[Gunny]

This entire section appears to be nothing more than a gut, antiliberal rant totally unrelated to the topic at hand. Moving on

Actually it is not, you just can't refute it.

In many ways I agree with you, but I believe you're position in impractical. If we don't have rights outside of the Constitution, and the government can only perform duties explicitly outlined in the Constitution, then even an idealized Conservative government would prove unable to manage the country. Back at the beginning of the country, when Jefferson first assumed the Presidency, he had to debate whether the Constitution allowed him to buy Louisiana from the French. There are just so many issues that we face in the modern day that the Constitution does not even touch on. For example the internet. Although the internet was originally a DoD project, its subsequent commercialization across the globe raises numerous questions. Can the United States government regulate the internet, an entity that technically doesn't even exist within the US. Does the Constitution grant the government the right to censor or warn against illicit content? How do the states factor into the smooth running of the web? None of these topics is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. A certain degree of implicit reasoning and material from other sources is needed inorder to decide many modern issues.

My comment was totally within the context of interpreting the US Constitution, and is not relevant to interpreting anything outside the US Constitution.

If the Federal government wishes to contol events outside what the Constitution states, then it is up to Congress to introduce legislation to do so; otherwise, control falls to the state or local government, or it remains unregulated. Introducing such legislation would require corroboration that may or may not be included within the text of the Constitution. My statement does not preclude this where lgislation is concerned. My statement addressed interpretation of already written law.

 

[Gunny]

Actually, "...lashing blindly out at anything that doesn't agree with you or what you want to do..." has become the hallmark of conservative thought these days. We need look no further than to the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative Republican noise machine for the proof of that pudding.

Or look no further than the likes of Al Franken, Jeneanne Garafalo, or that big fat lying slob that tells y'all what you're allowed to think, for proof of that pudding. That's not to mention YOU .... a walking talking liberal excuse and accusation handbook.

And all of those poor Republican Representatives and Senators whose delicate constitutions were upset by the DCCC's use of images of flag draped coffins...Mercy sakes alive! Never mind Republican use of images of 9/11 used in its ad campaigns for the 2004 election.

So you confess you left-wingnuts attempted to use fallen US Armed Forces casualties for political purposes? Beneath contempt.

So leave off with the cheap insults, you sound like a whiny liberal.

:rotflmao:

Right. When you lay off the Left-Wingnut Handbook of Bullshit Accusations, I'll lay off the insults. Otherwise, you are no better than the drivel you post.

 

[Mr.Conley]

My comment was totally within the context of interpreting the US Constitution, and is not relevant to interpreting anything outside the US Constitution.

Alright, to recap

But I thought we were supposed to interpret the Constitution in stasis, as the Founding Father's intended it to be written (the fact that the Founding Father's held wildly divergent interpretations of the Constitution notwithstanding). Since, according to you, we have to interpret the Constitution only from our understanding of their understanding, don't you find it important to understand them and their vision?

Okay, here I ask Gunny about how a strict constructionist interprets the Constitution.

If we interpret the US Constitution based on the mores and evils of the day in which the Founding Fathers lived, the left would be seriously screwed.

Ironically, while it is the left who revere the Founding Fathers in word, they are also the ones to remove all context and/or intent from the law in order to frame new, literal definitions that suit their causes. It's made a mockery of our laws, and includes intent only selectively, or in a skewed version.

Here Gunny talks about how 'the liberals' are screwing up the Constitution. Relevance to how a strict constructionist interprets the Constitution: marginal.

Actually it is not, you just can't refute it.

Two questions:
1. Is this how liberals interpret the Constitution?
2. Am I a liberal?

If the Federal government wishes to contol events outside what the Constitution states, then it is up to Congress to introduce legislation to do so; otherwise, control falls to the state or local government, or it remains unregulated. Introducing such legislation would require corroboration that may or may not be included within the text of the Constitution. My statement does not preclude this where lgislation is concerned. My statement addressed interpretation of already written law.

So in other words you think that unless the Constitution explicitly states whether or not something can or cannot occur, it is totally up to the Congress or the state legislatures to decide the new law. Correct or incorrect?

 

[Stephanie]

Actually, "...lashing blindly out at anything that doesn't agree with you or what you want to do..." has become the hallmark of conservative thought these days.

:rotflmao:



Nah.....We just decided to speak back at you, after all those yrs you got away with calling us bigot, racist, homophobes, tyrants and any other name you all can think of.. And man you all can't stand it.....

We need look no further than to the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative Republican noise machine for the proof of that pudding.

I've never seen a group of people, as with the liberals.... with their panties in a bunch, over talk radio commentators and writers.......

 

[Bullypulpit]

:rotflmao:



Nah.....We just decided to speak back at you, after all those yrs you got away with calling us bigot, racist, homophobes, tyrants and any other name you all can think of.. And man you all can't stand it.....



I've never seen a group of people, as with the liberals.... with their panties in a bunch, over talk radio commentators and writers.......

Nice riposte, not. Actually, you're just dodging the issues I raised, at the start of the thread. As have many of the posts "arguing" against those issues.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The deficit was definitely smaller during the Clinton years, but it was never eliminated, that is accounting fiction that would get corporate accountants thrown in jail for fraud if they tried it.

Indeed...I have long argued for the use of generally accepted accounting practices in government budgeting.

The New Deal did not lift america out of the great depression. In fact, it made the depression worse.

Actually the part of NIRA intended to support declining prices for businesses reinforced a cycle of overproduction and underconsumtion which undermined the intent of the bill and sent businesses back into a slump. It was America's entry into W.W. II that really lifted aAmerica from the depression. The New Deal helped lay the foundation for that revival.

I do agree that many conservatives have drifted far from what conservatism used to mean--from just 10 years ago, much less 50 years ago when being right wing meant that you were against foreign interventionism.

Not just opposition to foreign interventionism...But advocating for responsible government as well.