Endless Federal Overreach

[Sallow]

I know that we have folks who belive that federal power should be right there behind anyone who claims to be offended....
... and heaven help anyone who is the 'offender.'

1. The federal govenment is out to "eliminate the hostile sexual environment on campus."

2. "...the most recent and egregious event occurring in October of 2010. That is when a group of the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity pledges surrounded by brothers of the same fraternity loudly chanted "No means yes! Yes means anal!" "

3. Another of the horrors that the federal 'Minute Men' will confront "include the September 2009 "Preseason scouting report" email where a group of male Yale students widely circulated a list of fifty-three freshman women, ranking them in order of how many beers it would take to have sex with them."

4. And the G-Men are all over "several instances of private sexual harassment..." (Perhaps I should rephrase that...)
Yale Under Investigation For Sexual Harassment

Well, without bringing up Title IX, should this be a federal responsibilty....and if you believe so, where does it logically end?

When people stop complaining about it.

Until then..the Government is obligated to investigate complaints.

"...the Government is obligated..."

1. Only when we ignore the Constitution

and

2. When citizens don't act like adults and look for 'daddy government' to take care of them.

Ignore the Constitution? The government is responsible for the "General Welfare". Where is it ignoring the Constitution if someone petitions the government?

Seriously..Law enforcement is there to enforce the law.

 

[Foxfyre]

The

OK, OK - possibly I got a little carried away with my "1960's civil rights" comment. On further reading of your OP, I see you are limiting this to what you (apparently) think is something not worthy of federal attention. Maybe it isn't.

Try this one on. I went to a small, liberal arts college located in the southern California area. I won't say when I was doing my undergratuate work there, but is was a long, long time ago. Let's just say that we often saw deserters from both the North and the South walking through the campus, looking for a place to stay . . .

Anyway, we had a "tradition" that required all incoming freshman women to step up on a scale which was placed on the outside, front porch area of one of the women's dorms, in front of most of the male students on campus. The women would be weighed and measured (bust, waist and hips) and the results recorded in a book that was passed down from sophomore class to sophomore class.

We (the guys) always looked forward to "weigh in day" with great anticipation. I guess the well proportioned women didn't mind it as much as the less favored gals did. I was later told that the "weighing in" had caused many a sleepless night for girls who had been accepted and were awaiting the day they were to arrive on campus.

That practice has long since been discontinued at my college - and rightly so. Looking back, it was very wrong to put the women through something like that. But what did we know?

Now, suppose that the college had not voluntarily stopped the practice. Shouldn't SOME overviewing authority have stepped in and done so? Of course. And what it if had not? Would this be something of a sufficient enough nature to generate federal intervention, assuming all other avenues had been tried and failed?

Why of course? Why do not the women simply boycott the practice or attend another college until the powers at the university do something? What unalienable, civil, legal, or constitutional right of the women was being violated? Morally wrong? Yes. Ethically wrong? Yes. But it is for the moral and ethical people of the university to deal with, not the federal government. And if there ARE no moral or ethical people at that university, I would expect to attend a different university and also my daughter and anybody else I could persuade. And I would let the administration know why.

And if that was the ONLY university in the world admitting women, I bet I could find enough benefactors who saw it my way to build another university. And I bet we wouldn't have any problem recruiting all the female staff at the original university as well as what moral and ethical men existed.

The college involved was/still is, one of the best, small liberal arts colleges in the entire country. Being accepted is extremely difficult, I doubt that "going somewhere else" would have been a realistic alternative, merely to protest the weighing in ceremony.

But I don't think something like that would ever get to a federal level, probably not even a state level. Fortunately, the college had the foresight to change with the times. Don't forget, this was all a long, long time ago. Everyone smoked, racial discrimination was openly practiced - aw, hell: it was the mid 1950's.

But the point is nobody was FORCED to do anything. And as long as attendance at this university is voluntary, the administration should set the rules -- the bottom line is still buyer's choice and buyer beware. There is no constitutional right to have a university implement policy that we want it to have. The hazing permitted at that liberal arts college would not have been tolerated at many universities even in the 1950's.

Sallow mentions the 'general welfare' which the Founders always intended to be for the benefit of everybody and not an individual or a targeted group. The 'general welfare' is not an 'unalienable right' but was given to the federal government as a valid function.

A university that tolerates humiliating and inappropriate sexist behavior, so long as it does not cross the line into sexual assault, can certainly be criticized for its value system but it violates nobody's rights and therefore is not a prerogative of the federal government.

 

[mudwhistle]

This OP smells like "state's rights" with lipstick on it. "States rights" is a well-known, conservative buzz phrase which has as its end result, bad things.

That comment was dripping with irony.

I think it was during the Civil War when Democrats were screaming for State's Rights and the Republicans were supporting the Union. Now the shoe is on the other foot and they aren't handling it any better.

Whenever you have an overreaching and abusive government you're gonna get an argument in a free society. It's what makes freedom so precious and has the potential of being fleeting. If we remain silent and just let the left put their boot-heel on our throats then we won't have freedom of any kind. There has to be limits to federal power. It's essential.

 

[William Joyce]

I know that we have folks who belive that federal power should be right there behind anyone who claims to be offended....
... and heaven help anyone who is the 'offender.'

1. The federal govenment is out to "eliminate the hostile sexual environment on campus."

2. "...the most recent and egregious event occurring in October of 2010. That is when a group of the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity pledges surrounded by brothers of the same fraternity loudly chanted "No means yes! Yes means anal!" "

3. Another of the horrors that the federal 'Minute Men' will confront "include the September 2009 "Preseason scouting report" email where a group of male Yale students widely circulated a list of fifty-three freshman women, ranking them in order of how many beers it would take to have sex with them."

4. And the G-Men are all over "several instances of private sexual harassment..." (Perhaps I should rephrase that...)
Yale Under Investigation For Sexual Harassment

Well, without bringing up Title IX, should this be a federal responsibilty....and if you believe so, where does it logically end?

Would you classify the federal government's action in the 1960's, in the South, as "overreaching"?

Yes

 

[William Joyce]

This OP smells like "state's rights" with lipstick on it. "States rights" is a well-known, conservative buzz phrase which has as its end result, bad things.

Agreed. Whites should stop trembling behind notions like "states' rights" and unleash a full-throated assertion of their RACIAL RIGHTS.

That oughtta fuck 'em up pretty good.

 

[George Costanza]

This OP smells like "state's rights" with lipstick on it. "States rights" is a well-known, conservative buzz phrase which has as its end result, bad things.

That comment was dripping with irony.

I think it was during the Civil War when Democrats were screaming for State's Rights and the Republicans were supporting the Union. Now the shoe is on the other foot and they aren't handling it any better.

Whenever you have an overreaching and abusive government you're gonna get an argument in a free society. It's what makes freedom so precious and has the potential of being fleeting. If we remain silent and just let the left put their boot-heel on our throats then we won't have freedom of any kind. There has to be limits to federal power. It's essential.

Of course - I don't disagree with limits on federal power. No sane person would.

Perhaps Democrats were screaming for state's rights during the Civil War - I am not a Civil War historian, so, frankly, I don't know. But I do know that the Democrats (and the Republicans) of 1860 have nothing to do with what is going on today.

You will have to agree, that Federal intervention in the South during the 1960's was imperative. The southern states were not about to change their polices of racial discrimination. Without federal intervention, nothing would have happened.

But here again, times have changed even since the 1960's. It's a whole, different ball game now - which is why I kind of went back a bit on my "state's rights" comment in an earlier post on this thread. As usual, the problem is one of walking the fine line between what is appropriate for federal intervention and what is not. Are there any guidelines? I don't know - perhaps there are. Perhaps there is a Supreme Court decision somewhere, but frankly, I doubt it.

I kind of have to agree that regulation of sexual attitudes on college campuses is something that should be handled locally, not federally, IF that is in fact what the feds are actually attempting to do.

Anyway - good post.

 

[George Costanza]

The

Why of course? Why do not the women simply boycott the practice or attend another college until the powers at the university do something? What unalienable, civil, legal, or constitutional right of the women was being violated? Morally wrong? Yes. Ethically wrong? Yes. But it is for the moral and ethical people of the university to deal with, not the federal government. And if there ARE no moral or ethical people at that university, I would expect to attend a different university and also my daughter and anybody else I could persuade. And I would let the administration know why.

And if that was the ONLY university in the world admitting women, I bet I could find enough benefactors who saw it my way to build another university. And I bet we wouldn't have any problem recruiting all the female staff at the original university as well as what moral and ethical men existed.

The college involved was/still is, one of the best, small liberal arts colleges in the entire country. Being accepted is extremely difficult, I doubt that "going somewhere else" would have been a realistic alternative, merely to protest the weighing in ceremony.

But I don't think something like that would ever get to a federal level, probably not even a state level. Fortunately, the college had the foresight to change with the times. Don't forget, this was all a long, long time ago. Everyone smoked, racial discrimination was openly practiced - aw, hell: it was the mid 1950's.

But the point is nobody was FORCED to do anything. And as long as attendance at this university is voluntary, the administration should set the rules -- the bottom line is still buyer's choice and buyer beware. There is no constitutional right to have a university implement policy that we want it to have. The hazing permitted at that liberal arts college would not have been tolerated at many universities even in the 1950's.

Sallow mentions the 'general welfare' which the Founders always intended to be for the benefit of everybody and not an individual or a targeted group. The 'general welfare' is not an 'unalienable right' but was given to the federal government as a valid function.

A university that tolerates humiliating and inappropriate sexist behavior, so long as it does not cross the line into sexual assault, can certainly be criticized for its value system but it violates nobody's rights and therefore is not a prerogative of the federal government.

We were doing fine until that last paragraph here. I submit that colleges and universities can most certainly cross over the line of violating Constitutionally protected rights by tolerated actions of students or formalized policies. I'm not saying that the example in this thread would necessarily qualify - in fact, I don't think it would. But I don't' think you can make a blanket statement such as you are making here.

 

[Foxfyre]

The

The college involved was/still is, one of the best, small liberal arts colleges in the entire country. Being accepted is extremely difficult, I doubt that "going somewhere else" would have been a realistic alternative, merely to protest the weighing in ceremony.

But I don't think something like that would ever get to a federal level, probably not even a state level. Fortunately, the college had the foresight to change with the times. Don't forget, this was all a long, long time ago. Everyone smoked, racial discrimination was openly practiced - aw, hell: it was the mid 1950's.

But the point is nobody was FORCED to do anything. And as long as attendance at this university is voluntary, the administration should set the rules -- the bottom line is still buyer's choice and buyer beware. There is no constitutional right to have a university implement policy that we want it to have. The hazing permitted at that liberal arts college would not have been tolerated at many universities even in the 1950's.

Sallow mentions the 'general welfare' which the Founders always intended to be for the benefit of everybody and not an individual or a targeted group. The 'general welfare' is not an 'unalienable right' but was given to the federal government as a valid function.

A university that tolerates humiliating and inappropriate sexist behavior, so long as it does not cross the line into sexual assault, can certainly be criticized for its value system but it violates nobody's rights and therefore is not a prerogative of the federal government.

We were doing fine until that last paragraph here. I submit that colleges and universities can most certainly cross over the line of violating Constitutionally protected rights by tolerated actions of students or formalized policies. I'm not saying that the example in this thread would necessarily qualify - in fact, I don't think it would. But I don't' think you can make a blanket statement such as you are making here.

It wasn't intended to be a blanket statement. But my opinion is based on what I try to define as consistent principles to direct my conclusions about a lot of things.

In the first place, the federal government should not be funding private or state universities and should have no dog in the fight to begin with.

And then there is the principle of liberty to form the kind of society one wishes to have that is not subject to a king or monarch or dictator or pope or any other ruling authority. So. . . .if the university wants to permit the kind of hazing described, the university should be allowed to permit that provided nobody was forced to participate. It is a disgusting, humiliating, and inappropriate policy, but, so long as people choose to submit to it, it does not violate anybody's rights. The university should also be able to set rules prohibiting such behavior as well and thankfully most do. (And did waaaaaaay back then, too.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

When people stop complaining about it.

Until then..the Government is obligated to investigate complaints.

"...the Government is obligated..."

1. Only when we ignore the Constitution

and

2. When citizens don't act like adults and look for 'daddy government' to take care of them.

Ignore the Constitution? The government is responsible for the "General Welfare". Where is it ignoring the Constitution if someone petitions the government?

Seriously..Law enforcement is there to enforce the law.

"...enforce the law..."???

And where did you think the inane law came from, brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses???

No, progressives like yourself who see no end to the auspices of the federal govenment.

I commend to you de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America," in which he predicted - over 150 years ago, that some folks (if the shoe fits....) would agree to have their thinking done for them.

In part:
“after having taken each individual in this fashion by turns into its powerful hands, and after having kneaded him in accord with its desires, the sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way past the crowd and emerge into the light of day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well played.

In real life, I'm a lawyer - so now you KNOW you can trust me!

You know the line in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers" ?

Do you think the feds should ban Shakespeare as well as the horrid things the Yalies were saying?

Speak up, Georgie...and be consistent.

OK, OK - possibly I got a little carried away with my "1960's civil rights" comment. On further reading of your OP, I see you are limiting this to what you (apparently) think is something not worthy of federal attention. Maybe it isn't.

Try this one on. I went to a small, liberal arts college located in the southern California area. I won't say when I was doing my undergratuate work there, but is was a long, long time ago. Let's just say that we often saw deserters from both the North and the South walking through the campus, looking for a place to stay . . .

Anyway, we had a "tradition" that required all incoming freshman women to step up on a scale which was placed on the outside, front porch area of one of the women's dorms, in front of most of the male students on campus. The women would be weighed and measured (bust, waist and hips) and the results recorded in a book that was passed down from sophomore class to sophomore class.

We (the guys) always looked forward to "weigh in day" with great anticipation. I guess the well proportioned women didn't mind it as much as the less favored gals did. I was later told that the "weighing in" had caused many a sleepless night for girls who had been accepted and were awaiting the day they were to arrive on campus.

That practice has long since been discontinued at my college - and rightly so. Looking back, it was very wrong to put the women through something like that. But what did we know?

Now, suppose that the college had not voluntarily stopped the practice. Shouldn't SOME overviewing authority have stepped in and done so? Of course. And what it if had not? Would this be something of a sufficient enough nature to generate federal intervention, assuming all other avenues had been tried and failed?

Now, this example fits our discussion.

But you have already provided my answer: you admitted "That practice has long since been discontinued ..."

Why?
Did the DOJ bring charges?

You see, the explanation that you give for the 'why' is the reasons no government intrusion is necessary.

If I may broaden the discussion, but a fitting deviaton, is Dennis Prager's definition of a liberal:

GOOD INTENTION PLUS COERCION EQUALS SOLUTION.

You see, liberal folk rarely allow for the goodness and common sense of the public in general.
But, you're such a reasonable guy that I have high hopes for you!

 

[Sallow]

"...the Government is obligated..."

1. Only when we ignore the Constitution

and

2. When citizens don't act like adults and look for 'daddy government' to take care of them.

Ignore the Constitution? The government is responsible for the "General Welfare". Where is it ignoring the Constitution if someone petitions the government?

Seriously..Law enforcement is there to enforce the law.

"...enforce the law..."???

And where did you think the inane law came from, brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses???

No, progressives like yourself who see no end to the auspices of the federal govenment.

I commend to you de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America," in which he predicted - over 150 years ago, that some folks (if the shoe fits....) would agree to have their thinking done for them.

In part:
“after having taken each individual in this fashion by turns into its powerful hands, and after having kneaded him in accord with its desires, the sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way past the crowd and emerge into the light of day.

Conservatives always talk about these "indivdualistic" tropes yet when they govern, they same hell bent to smash liberty. Why is it that:

1. Torture.
2. Wire tapping.
3. No knock warrants.
4. No Miranda.
5. Free Speech "Zones".
6. Anti-America "investigations".
7. Book banning.
8. Secret Prisons.
9. "Shadow" governments.
10. Extraordinary Rendition

And a host of other things seem to be okay with the right but protecting someone from rotten food or dangerous products is a strike against freedom.

It's Orwellian.

I want to be able to walk the streets without the fear of getting my head blown off by some lout, eat a roast beef sandwich I know has real meat and have a beer that's been made with safe ingredients. I don't want to have the FBI bust down my door if I write a newspaper article critical of United States policy. And Conservatives seems to want the reverse.

Simple as that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ignore the Constitution? The government is responsible for the "General Welfare". Where is it ignoring the Constitution if someone petitions the government?

Seriously..Law enforcement is there to enforce the law.

"...enforce the law..."???

And where did you think the inane law came from, brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses???

No, progressives like yourself who see no end to the auspices of the federal govenment.

I commend to you de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America," in which he predicted - over 150 years ago, that some folks (if the shoe fits....) would agree to have their thinking done for them.

In part:
“after having taken each individual in this fashion by turns into its powerful hands, and after having kneaded him in accord with its desires, the sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way past the crowd and emerge into the light of day.

Conservatives always talk about these "indivdualistic" tropes yet when they govern, they same hell bent to smash liberty. Why is it that:

1. Torture.
2. Wire tapping.
3. No knock warrants.
4. No Miranda.
5. Free Speech "Zones".
6. Anti-America "investigations".
7. Book banning.
8. Secret Prisons.
9. "Shadow" governments.
10. Extraordinary Rendition

And a host of other things seem to be okay with the right but protecting someone from rotten food or dangerous products is a strike against freedom.

It's Orwellian.

I want to be able to walk the streets without the fear of getting my head blown off by some lout, eat a roast beef sandwich I know has real meat and have a beer that's been made with safe ingredients. I don't want to have the FBI bust down my door if I write a newspaper article critical of United States policy. And Conservatives seems to want the reverse.

Simple as that.

I can understand why you chose to document not one single item in what we can laughingly call your 'post'....as not one is true.

Carry on.

 

[signelect]

Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, alive and progressing in the United States of America. Greed and moral decay, a total blurring of right and wrong.

Wake up all of us.

 

[Foxfyre]

Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, alive and progressing in the United States of America. Greed and moral decay, a total blurring of right and wrong.

Wake up all of us.

Skipping over Sallow's non sequitur red herring post, let's refocus on what is and is not a violation of human, civil, legal, constitutional, and unalienable rights as it pertains to what should concern the federal government. And more specifically, what should the federal government concern itself with re university policy.

1. Again, it is my opinion that the federal government should not be funding any university anywhere, but if it is going to, it CAN set rules and guidelines as conditions for receiving the funding. If such conditions included prohibition of inappropriate conduct on campus then the prerogative of the federal government would be to withhold funding if such inappropriate conduct existed.

The federal government should be able to intervene in nothing, however, UNLESS a person's unalienable or civil rights were being violated.

2. If the states establish state universities, each state can set its own standards, rules, regs, etc. for those universities which could include guidelines or rules for 'hazing' etc. and again a universities funding could be made contingent on not violating the guidelines or rules. Also if any state laws are broken, state regulatory or law enforcement authority could step in.

Otherwise each university can set its own standards for what is or is not permissable short of violating the legal, civil, or unalienable rights of the students. The governing authority should be the provosts/administration and decent students and/or their parents should turn thumbs down on a university that allows indecent, repugnant, or unacceptable behavior. That puts the power with the people where it should always be.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I know that we have folks who belive that federal power should be right there behind anyone who claims to be offended....
... and heaven help anyone who is the 'offender.'

1. The federal govenment is out to "eliminate the hostile sexual environment on campus."

2. "...the most recent and egregious event occurring in October of 2010. That is when a group of the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity pledges surrounded by brothers of the same fraternity loudly chanted "No means yes! Yes means anal!" "

3. Another of the horrors that the federal 'Minute Men' will confront "include the September 2009 "Preseason scouting report" email where a group of male Yale students widely circulated a list of fifty-three freshman women, ranking them in order of how many beers it would take to have sex with them."

4. And the G-Men are all over "several instances of private sexual harassment..." (Perhaps I should rephrase that...)
Yale Under Investigation For Sexual Harassment

Well, without bringing up Title IX, should this be a federal responsibilty....and if you believe so, where does it logically end?

When people stop complaining about it.

Until then..the Government is obligated to investigate complaints.

Whatever happened to the school investigating the complaints?

Seriously do we want the fucking government involved in something as idiotic as the hormonal and alcohol fueled never ending quest for sex in college?

 

[George Costanza]

Conservatives always talk about these "indivdualistic" tropes yet when they govern, they same hell bent to smash liberty. Why is it that:

1. Torture.
2. Wire tapping.
3. No knock warrants.
4. No Miranda.
5. Free Speech "Zones".
6. Anti-America "investigations".
7. Book banning.
8. Secret Prisons.
9. "Shadow" governments.
10. Extraordinary Rendition

And a host of other things seem to be okay with the right but protecting someone from rotten food or dangerous products is a strike against freedom.

It's Orwellian.

I want to be able to walk the streets without the fear of getting my head blown off by some lout, eat a roast beef sandwich I know has real meat and have a beer that's been made with safe ingredients. I don't want to have the FBI bust down my door if I write a newspaper article critical of United States policy. And Conservatives seems to want the reverse.

Simple as that.

I can understand why you chose to document not one single item in what we can laughingly call your 'post'....as not one is true.

Carry on.

Are you seriously claiming that Sallow's list here is inaccurate - that the things he lists are not things that conservatives are in favor of?

Better rethink that one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservatives always talk about these "indivdualistic" tropes yet when they govern, they same hell bent to smash liberty. Why is it that:

1. Torture.
2. Wire tapping.
3. No knock warrants.
4. No Miranda.
5. Free Speech "Zones".
6. Anti-America "investigations".
7. Book banning.
8. Secret Prisons.
9. "Shadow" governments.
10. Extraordinary Rendition

And a host of other things seem to be okay with the right but protecting someone from rotten food or dangerous products is a strike against freedom.

It's Orwellian.

I want to be able to walk the streets without the fear of getting my head blown off by some lout, eat a roast beef sandwich I know has real meat and have a beer that's been made with safe ingredients. I don't want to have the FBI bust down my door if I write a newspaper article critical of United States policy. And Conservatives seems to want the reverse.

Simple as that.

I can understand why you chose to document not one single item in what we can laughingly call your 'post'....as not one is true.

Carry on.

Are you seriously claiming that Sallow's list here is inaccurate - that the things he lists are not things that conservatives are in favor of?

Better rethink that one.

Before I do, Georgie, how about you pick one or two and document same.

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatives always talk about these "indivdualistic" tropes yet when they govern, they same hell bent to smash liberty. Why is it that:

1. Torture.
2. Wire tapping.
3. No knock warrants.
4. No Miranda.
5. Free Speech "Zones".
6. Anti-America "investigations".
7. Book banning.
8. Secret Prisons.
9. "Shadow" governments.
10. Extraordinary Rendition

And a host of other things seem to be okay with the right but protecting someone from rotten food or dangerous products is a strike against freedom.

It's Orwellian.

I want to be able to walk the streets without the fear of getting my head blown off by some lout, eat a roast beef sandwich I know has real meat and have a beer that's been made with safe ingredients. I don't want to have the FBI bust down my door if I write a newspaper article critical of United States policy. And Conservatives seems to want the reverse.

Simple as that.

I can understand why you chose to document not one single item in what we can laughingly call your 'post'....as not one is true.

Carry on.

Are you seriously claiming that Sallow's list here is inaccurate - that the things he lists are not things that conservatives are in favor of?

Better rethink that one.

Some conservatives are no doubt in favor of some of those things as are some liberals. We are speaking of modern understanding of the terms instead of the dictionary or classical definitions of course.

To say that CONSERVATIVES or LIBERALS are in favor of any of them, however, is not only really really DUMB, but highly inaccurate.

But my point is that the post was inappropriate and non sequitur and an ad hominem red herring to include on this thread which isn't about any of those things.

 

[George Costanza]

I can understand why you chose to document not one single item in what we can laughingly call your 'post'....as not one is true.

Carry on.

Are you seriously claiming that Sallow's list here is inaccurate - that the things he lists are not things that conservatives are in favor of?

Better rethink that one.

Some conservatives are no doubt in favor of some of those things as are some liberals. We are speaking of modern understanding of the terms instead of the dictionary or classical definitions of course.

To say that CONSERVATIVES or LIBERALS are in favor of any of them, however, is not only really really DUMB, but highly inaccurate.

But my point is that the post was inappropriate and non sequitur and an ad hominem red herring to include on this thread which isn't about any of those things.

Foxy, Foxy, Foxy . . . . OBVIOUSLY I don't think that ALL conservatives hold all of these views, or even any of them. I love the way you have to qualify everything you say on this board or get questioned about it every time.

I think it is safe to say that MANY conservatives hold MOST (if not all) of these views and that many more conservatives hold these views than liberals.

OK?

 

[George Costanza]

I can understand why you chose to document not one single item in what we can laughingly call your 'post'....as not one is true.

Carry on.

Are you seriously claiming that Sallow's list here is inaccurate - that the things he lists are not things that conservatives are in favor of?

Better rethink that one.

Before I do, Georgie, how about you pick one or two and document same.

Not falling for that one, sweet pea. You know as well as I that what Sallow and I are saying is correct. Your Google works just as well as mine. This is a somewhat subjective claim, but not all that subjective.