Liberal Contempt for the Constitution

[JakeStarkey]

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly in the past months by several posters.

You now attempt the "give me the evidence" ploy. The answer is "no, that has been done."

Make sure the terminology is critically objective and accounted for bias, and then possibly the creditability of argumentation may improve.

You can do this by beginning with clear, objective definitions of "liberalism", "classic liberalism", "conservatism", "radical", and "reactionary".

So you are unable to document your post with the specifics?

In the words of Claude Raines as Captain Renault, 'I'm shocked.'

Thanks, that is a great description of you, PC. Over the months all of the above objective critical comments have been documented about your mistaken conceit that you know about what you are writing. You have remained consistently immoral in your stubbornness, that in the face of clear and convincing evidence, you yet continue to misplay, misdeal, and misaddress your silly reactionary positions.

Those who are well informed, well read, and well educated will continue to correct your public miscues. This is good. From your silly scraps, we will constitute the necessary corrections.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Westwall, the insane are on the streets in the name of Reagan privatization and mental health outpatient treatment. The idea was that private business could perform these services more cheaply and humanely. In fact, they have done the exact opposite. Also consider the state of private prison populations (a 500% growth in forty years), elder care, and foster care. In the name of Reagan, greedy and unconscionable Americans have predated on the weakest of all Americans.

 

[Father Time]

Focus is not a problem for me. And I don't mind providing information for those of you who are research-challenged, but don't try to convince me to provide it without some sort of 'payment,' in this case the spanking that some of you fellows require.

It's your job to back up your points, you are not due anything for doing so.

I believe that that determination will be left up to me.

And yet it isn't. If you make a claim you back it up and if you can't or won't it will be ignored.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's the point, Father Time. She makes a statement, gives some quotes, then can't support the position. She has never caught the idea of what the affirmative position requires.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly in the past months by several posters.

You now attempt the "give me the evidence" ploy. The answer is "no, that has been done."

Make sure the terminology is critically objective and accounted for bias, and then possibly the creditability of argumentation may improve.

You can do this by beginning with clear, objective definitions of "liberalism", "classic liberalism", "conservatism", "radical", and "reactionary".

So you are unable to document your post with the specifics?

In the words of Claude Raines as Captain Renault, 'I'm shocked.'

Thanks, that is a great description of you, PC. Over the months all of the above objective critical comments have been documented about your mistaken conceit that you know about what you are writing. You have remained consistently immoral in your stubbornness, that in the face of clear and convincing evidence, you yet continue to misplay, misdeal, and misaddress your silly reactionary positions.

Those who are well informed, well read, and well educated will continue to correct your public miscues. This is good. From your silly scraps, we will constitute the necessary corrections.

All this verbiage, but no examples?

You are the proverbial 'empty barrel.;

And, as for "Those who are well informed, well read, and well educated ..." it seems you leave the work to others, as I cannot find you in this description.

 

[antagon]

"I don't fit into anybody's definition of a liberal."

Well, then, how the heck am I going to fight with you????

Of course, you are correct that the start of any debate should be a definition of terms.

it cant be summed up any more poignantly than that. your mindset requires that a nebulous pigeon-hole be defined before you can see a policy for what it is. in fact, your mindset precludes having to see a policy for what it is.

it's all over this thread: a partisan perspective on who's got the constitution right. It has blinded you to the fact that you project the same 'contempt' for the constitution which you criticize.

aren't you merely claiming this whole time that you wished the SCOTUS decided to see things your way and that democratically elected officials were always those with your values?

 

[antagon]

There is a fundamental problem with the term liberal and conservative. A conservative is a person who believes in an individualistic centered government. In other words the government has very little power over the individual while the individual has great power over the government. And appropriately the individual is responsible for his or her welfare. They are beholden to none.

Liberalism is the antithesis of that philosophy. instead the government has vast powers to control the individual and the individual is at the mercy of that government. It is a collectivist mentality. Fascism, communisim, and socialism are all examples of a collectivist government. Fabian Socialists try to hide that fact by calling communists "leftists" and fascsists "rightwingers" but when you compare their relationships with their subjects they are basically the same. No rights and no responsibilities..unless you are member of the ruling class.

One other fundamental difference between a collectivist society and an individualist society is how the soldiers are viewed. In a collectivist society you are expected to die for the country which is why Russia suffered 25 million casualties during WWII, people were cheaper than equipment so they were used up to preserve the equipment wherever possible. The steppes saw some of the worst examples of that where the NKVD would round up villages and have them charge across the open field to make the German machineguns run out of bullets.

For comparison Germany suffered approximately 3 million dead, Italy around 400,000 (and they surrendered in 1943), Japan over 2 million as they did not keep track of civilian deaths in any meaningful way. But the western allies suffered much less. The UK lost around 400,000, the US lost 360,000, France lost around 200,000. So if I was in a war I know which side I would want to be on.

In an individualistic society however if a soldier dies for his or her country we are grateful for their sacrafice and try to limit that sacrafice wherever possible as is clearly demonstrated by the casualty figures.

One other thing that most no one knows is that after the Russian POWs were freed from the German camps they were immediatly sent to the gulags because they had been "tainted by the west" according to Stalin. And lets not forget the 80 MILLION that he killed in the gulags before WWII had even started. And then of cousre there is China where demographers estimate that Mao had 150 MILLION killed during the Culteral Revolution. Yep give me a good collectivist government any time..

welcome, westwall, it is cool to see someone who makes posts with some gravity. it is troubling, however, that you seem to be another poster who has bought into the religious fuhrer that has overtaken the concepts of conservative and liberal.

i remember more traditional and simpler definitions of the term conservative. it could be summed up as spending and taking less money. liberal, you are right, is the opposite.

aren't your stretches about collectivism and all that bullshit? this need to make conservatism out to a whole set of ideals about individualism (for you) collective morality (for others), etc. has made it impossible to trust conservatives to spend less bux. that's it. now, they pack an expensive agenda of hardly individualist pet-projects, and the original meaning is long lost.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"I don't fit into anybody's definition of a liberal."

Well, then, how the heck am I going to fight with you????

Of course, you are correct that the start of any debate should be a definition of terms.

it cant be summed up any more poignantly than that. your mindset requires that a nebulous pigeon-hole be defined before you can see a policy for what it is. in fact, your mindset precludes having to see a policy for what it is.

it's all over this thread: a partisan perspective on who's got the constitution right. It has blinded you to the fact that you project the same 'contempt' for the constitution which you criticize.

aren't you merely claiming this whole time that you wished the SCOTUS decided to see things your way and that democratically elected officials were always those with your values?

Not 'poignantly'...succinctly. I suggest you detemine the meanings before selecting the words for your post. Or- have someone with an education help you with them.
'poignantly' means moving, touching. Is that what you meant? I thought not.
'succinct' means expressed in few words; concise.

'nebulous pigeon-hole' mean 'vague, indistinct specific compartment' What is wrong with you?

Please confirm that English is not your first language.

"aren't you merely claiming this whole time that you wished the SCOTUS decided to see things your way"
No.
Where does this come from, aside from a fevered imagination.

The idea has nothing to do with mindset, but with training and expertise.

A proper debate requires that each side understand what the other is saying, and an agreement on terms.

But I've read your posts, and note that you will have difficulty in understanding that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a fundamental problem with the term liberal and conservative. A conservative is a person who believes in an individualistic centered government. In other words the government has very little power over the individual while the individual has great power over the government. And appropriately the individual is responsible for his or her welfare. They are beholden to none.

Liberalism is the antithesis of that philosophy. instead the government has vast powers to control the individual and the individual is at the mercy of that government. It is a collectivist mentality. Fascism, communisim, and socialism are all examples of a collectivist government. Fabian Socialists try to hide that fact by calling communists "leftists" and fascsists "rightwingers" but when you compare their relationships with their subjects they are basically the same. No rights and no responsibilities..unless you are member of the ruling class.

One other fundamental difference between a collectivist society and an individualist society is how the soldiers are viewed. In a collectivist society you are expected to die for the country which is why Russia suffered 25 million casualties during WWII, people were cheaper than equipment so they were used up to preserve the equipment wherever possible. The steppes saw some of the worst examples of that where the NKVD would round up villages and have them charge across the open field to make the German machineguns run out of bullets.

For comparison Germany suffered approximately 3 million dead, Italy around 400,000 (and they surrendered in 1943), Japan over 2 million as they did not keep track of civilian deaths in any meaningful way. But the western allies suffered much less. The UK lost around 400,000, the US lost 360,000, France lost around 200,000. So if I was in a war I know which side I would want to be on.

In an individualistic society however if a soldier dies for his or her country we are grateful for their sacrafice and try to limit that sacrafice wherever possible as is clearly demonstrated by the casualty figures.

One other thing that most no one knows is that after the Russian POWs were freed from the German camps they were immediatly sent to the gulags because they had been "tainted by the west" according to Stalin. And lets not forget the 80 MILLION that he killed in the gulags before WWII had even started. And then of cousre there is China where demographers estimate that Mao had 150 MILLION killed during the Culteral Revolution. Yep give me a good collectivist government any time..

welcome, westwall, it is cool to see someone who makes posts with some gravity. it is troubling, however, that you seem to be another poster who has bought into the religious fuhrer that has overtaken the concepts of conservative and liberal.

i remember more traditional and simpler definitions of the term conservative. it could be summed up as spending and taking less money. liberal, you are right, is the opposite.

aren't your stretches about collectivism and all that bullshit? this need to make conservatism out to a whole set of ideals about individualism (for you) collective morality (for others), etc. has made it impossible to trust conservatives to spend less bux. that's it. now, they pack an expensive agenda of hardly individualist pet-projects, and the original meaning is long lost.

1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

6) Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in “let the government do it..” Burke's understanding that the "little platoon" - family, neighborhood, professional organizations etc - is the "first principle" of society has been consistently identified as providing the necessary inspiration for conservativism. And explains why conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

7) Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

8) Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9) Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

 

[antagon]

"I don't fit into anybody's definition of a liberal."

Well, then, how the heck am I going to fight with you????

Of course, you are correct that the start of any debate should be a definition of terms.

it cant be summed up any more poignantly than that. your mindset requires that a nebulous pigeon-hole be defined before you can see a policy for what it is. in fact, your mindset precludes having to see a policy for what it is.

it's all over this thread: a partisan perspective on who's got the constitution right. It has blinded you to the fact that you project the same 'contempt' for the constitution which you criticize.

aren't you merely claiming this whole time that you wished the SCOTUS decided to see things your way and that democratically elected officials were always those with your values?

Not 'poignantly'...succinctly. I suggest you detemine the meanings before selecting the words for your post. Or- have someone with an education help you with them.
'poignantly' means moving, touching. Is that what you meant? I thought not.
'succinct' means expressed in few words; concise.

'nebulous pigeon-hole' mean 'vague, indistinct specific compartment' What is wrong with you?

Please confirm that English is not your first language.

"aren't you merely claiming this whole time that you wished the SCOTUS decided to see things your way"
No.
Where does this come from, aside from a fevered imagination.

The idea has nothing to do with mindset, but with training and expertise.

A proper debate requires that each side understand what the other is saying, and an agreement on terms.

But I've read your posts, and note that you will have difficulty in understanding that.

no, you're free to read my posts for what they say as you've defined them. i'd have said succinct if i felt it captured the 'she's an idiot' epiphany i was overcome with when that was your only response to editec's post.

anyhow, your definitions thing is a joke to me, really.

..

you have, indeed, raised a qualm over what the SCOTUS has decided, and argued it didnt fit with your interpretation.

Progressivism was the first American political movement based primarily on the criticism and deconstruction of the Constitution. The Constitution provided the framework for limited government. The checks and balances, strictly interpreted, prevent such ideas as redistribution for ‘social justice,’ thus, the "living Constitution."

in the statement above you've criticized the court's findings, then loaded the justification with your opinion as to how they should have decided (note 'strictly interpreted').

your extreme right-wing fringe lunacy contingent, thank god, has neither had its posture upheld, nor represented in politics for a century here, if ever. you are merely sour grapes over the fact and characterized the state of the union as an affront to the constitution based on how you would have interpreted it. although, you wont accept that, it's the truth evident to those not on the wingtip with you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We have clearly defined the differences between the center and the far right.

If you would define me as "far right," then perhaps we have. However, my political ideology doesn't determine how I look at the facts, the facts determine my political ideology.

Then you misunderstand the facts.

The facts are clear, the states ratified the Constitution.

 

[antagon]

There is a fundamental problem with the term liberal and conservative. A conservative is a person who believes in an individualistic centered government. In other words the government has very little power over the individual while the individual has great power over the government. And appropriately the individual is responsible for his or her welfare. They are beholden to none.

Liberalism is the antithesis of that philosophy. instead the government has vast powers to control the individual and the individual is at the mercy of that government. It is a collectivist mentality. Fascism, communisim, and socialism are all examples of a collectivist government. Fabian Socialists try to hide that fact by calling communists "leftists" and fascsists "rightwingers" but when you compare their relationships with their subjects they are basically the same. No rights and no responsibilities..unless you are member of the ruling class.

One other fundamental difference between a collectivist society and an individualist society is how the soldiers are viewed. In a collectivist society you are expected to die for the country which is why Russia suffered 25 million casualties during WWII, people were cheaper than equipment so they were used up to preserve the equipment wherever possible. The steppes saw some of the worst examples of that where the NKVD would round up villages and have them charge across the open field to make the German machineguns run out of bullets.

For comparison Germany suffered approximately 3 million dead, Italy around 400,000 (and they surrendered in 1943), Japan over 2 million as they did not keep track of civilian deaths in any meaningful way. But the western allies suffered much less. The UK lost around 400,000, the US lost 360,000, France lost around 200,000. So if I was in a war I know which side I would want to be on.

In an individualistic society however if a soldier dies for his or her country we are grateful for their sacrafice and try to limit that sacrafice wherever possible as is clearly demonstrated by the casualty figures.

One other thing that most no one knows is that after the Russian POWs were freed from the German camps they were immediatly sent to the gulags because they had been "tainted by the west" according to Stalin. And lets not forget the 80 MILLION that he killed in the gulags before WWII had even started. And then of cousre there is China where demographers estimate that Mao had 150 MILLION killed during the Culteral Revolution. Yep give me a good collectivist government any time..

welcome, westwall, it is cool to see someone who makes posts with some gravity. it is troubling, however, that you seem to be another poster who has bought into the religious fuhrer that has overtaken the concepts of conservative and liberal.

i remember more traditional and simpler definitions of the term conservative. it could be summed up as spending and taking less money. liberal, you are right, is the opposite.

aren't your stretches about collectivism and all that bullshit? this need to make conservatism out to a whole set of ideals about individualism (for you) collective morality (for others), etc. has made it impossible to trust conservatives to spend less bux. that's it. now, they pack an expensive agenda of hardly individualist pet-projects, and the original meaning is long lost.

1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

6) Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in “let the government do it..” Burke's understanding that the "little platoon" - family, neighborhood, professional organizations etc - is the "first principle" of society has been consistently identified as providing the necessary inspiration for conservativism. And explains why conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

7) Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

8) Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9) Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

bullshit.

conservatives spend less money. maybe neoconservatives are into all that shit.

this is whats wrong with you.

 

[Foxfyre]

1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

These are fascinating concepts and do provide an expanded perspective.

My response summarized:

Conservatives recognize basic values and tradition that have served us and all humanity well and believe these are worth defending and emulating and incorporating into the social contract.

Liberals tend to scorn such basic values and tradition and diminish them because of some imperfection perceived to be associated with them.

Even as there are many noble liberals who become our friends, it does seem to be the trend of liberalism to consider itself the better example of moral virtue, to see itself as better people, more noble, more worthy, more intelligent, better educated, and less selfish than those describing themselves as conservative. It manifests itself into a kind of snobbish elitism granting itself license and authority to judge, and if possible manage by force those who do not share its their elitist views.

PC's definition:

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

Liberals seem to believe that right motives are sufficient for success, and results should not be counted as any part of virtue.

PC's definition

4) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

Conservatives believe government should secure their rights and then leave them alone to order their society and live their lives in any manner that they choose.

Liberals believe it is the people's role to conform to the dictates of government.

PC's Definition:

5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

Conservatives go with the Lockean principle that property is a natural right, it precedes government, and government should not be able to take or dispose of private property arbitrarily.

Liberals tend to look at all property as belonging to the whole, and the whole (i.e. government) should decide what part of that property each person should have available to him/her.

PC's definition:

6) Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in “let the government do it..” Burke's understanding that the "little platoon" - family, neighborhood, professional organizations etc - is the "first principle" of society has been consistently identified as providing the necessary inspiration for conservativism. And explains why conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

Conservatives know that the only noble charity is that which is given voluntarily and know that there is much danger that government dispensing charity will corrupt both itself and those receiving it.

Liberals tend to feel righteous when the property of others is confiscated and given to somebody else. They see redistribution of wealth and equality of results as a rightful role of government.

PC's definition

7) Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

This one might be a bit unfair. I think both Conservatives and liberals see people as good and bad, but the Conservative view is that there are consequences, both good and bad, for the choices we make. We serve best by encouraging, teaching, or demonstrating how to make better choices.

I think Liberals split their personality on this one. They condemn those who are not liberals for the choices they make. They tend to look at everybody else as victims of society when they make poor choices.

PC's definition:

8) Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9) Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

Conservative: Evaluate and judge all things by the results, toss out what doesn't work, keep what does work, and value excellence.
Liberal: Good motives are more important than results and need takes precedence over ability.

10) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

Conservatives: Judge all by what they do, not who they are.
Liberals: Judge all by who they are, not by what they do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

it cant be summed up any more poignantly than that. your mindset requires that a nebulous pigeon-hole be defined before you can see a policy for what it is. in fact, your mindset precludes having to see a policy for what it is.

it's all over this thread: a partisan perspective on who's got the constitution right. It has blinded you to the fact that you project the same 'contempt' for the constitution which you criticize.

aren't you merely claiming this whole time that you wished the SCOTUS decided to see things your way and that democratically elected officials were always those with your values?

Not 'poignantly'...succinctly. I suggest you detemine the meanings before selecting the words for your post. Or- have someone with an education help you with them.
'poignantly' means moving, touching. Is that what you meant? I thought not.
'succinct' means expressed in few words; concise.

'nebulous pigeon-hole' mean 'vague, indistinct specific compartment' What is wrong with you?

Please confirm that English is not your first language.

"aren't you merely claiming this whole time that you wished the SCOTUS decided to see things your way"
No.
Where does this come from, aside from a fevered imagination.

The idea has nothing to do with mindset, but with training and expertise.

A proper debate requires that each side understand what the other is saying, and an agreement on terms.

But I've read your posts, and note that you will have difficulty in understanding that.

no, you're free to read my posts for what they say as you've defined them. i'd have said succinct if i felt it captured the 'she's an idiot' epiphany i was overcome with when that was your only response to editec's post.

anyhow, your definitions thing is a joke to me, really.

..

you have, indeed, raised a qualm over what the SCOTUS has decided, and argued it didnt fit with your interpretation.

Progressivism was the first American political movement based primarily on the criticism and deconstruction of the Constitution. The Constitution provided the framework for limited government. The checks and balances, strictly interpreted, prevent such ideas as redistribution for ‘social justice,’ thus, the "living Constitution."

in the statement above you've criticized the court's findings, then loaded the justification with your opinion as to how they should have decided (note 'strictly interpreted').

your extreme right-wing fringe lunacy contingent, thank god, has neither had its posture upheld, nor represented in politics for a century here, if ever. you are merely sour grapes over the fact and characterized the state of the union as an affront to the constitution based on how you would have interpreted it. although, you wont accept that, it's the truth evident to those not on the wingtip with you.

Methinks you protest too much.

You use words incorrectly, and this also represents your ability with ideas. Clearly, you were unaware of the meaning of poignantly, as it was not the only work you misused. And now you choose to cover embarrassment with a lie? How liberal of you.

You write poorly, and it reflects in your thinking as well.

"...you've criticized the court's findings..." This stretch is a transparent attempt to make it seem that your point, such as it is, has some import. It does not. Nor does it restore any semblance of honesty to your post.

The checks and balances are embedded throughout the Constitution.


Before you next post, you should consider asking yourself” Do I really want the word ‘moron’ in my obituary?”

 

[PoliticalChic]

welcome, westwall, it is cool to see someone who makes posts with some gravity. it is troubling, however, that you seem to be another poster who has bought into the religious fuhrer that has overtaken the concepts of conservative and liberal.

i remember more traditional and simpler definitions of the term conservative. it could be summed up as spending and taking less money. liberal, you are right, is the opposite.

aren't your stretches about collectivism and all that bullshit? this need to make conservatism out to a whole set of ideals about individualism (for you) collective morality (for others), etc. has made it impossible to trust conservatives to spend less bux. that's it. now, they pack an expensive agenda of hardly individualist pet-projects, and the original meaning is long lost.

1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

6) Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in “let the government do it..” Burke's understanding that the "little platoon" - family, neighborhood, professional organizations etc - is the "first principle" of society has been consistently identified as providing the necessary inspiration for conservativism. And explains why conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

7) Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

8) Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9) Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

bullshit.

conservatives spend less money. maybe neoconservatives are into all that shit.

this is whats wrong with you.

What a brilliant response to a dispositive post.

Glad to see you working up to ability.


Ah, I get it. You're trying to displace my candidate, deanie, as 'Dumbest Poster'...

Maybe,,,just maybe.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your post was merely silly, PC. You truly need to think before you write. Right now, you are merely for chuckles and grins.

 

[antagon]

bullshit.

conservatives spend less money. maybe neoconservatives are into all that shit.

this is whats wrong with you.

What a brilliant response to a dispositive post.

Glad to see you working up to ability.


Ah, I get it. You're trying to displace my candidate, deanie, as 'Dumbest Poster'...

Maybe,,,just maybe.

dummy, the more convoluted and loaded with moral righteousness your definition of conservatism is, the less credible. that's that.

 

[antagon]

Not 'poignantly'...succinctly. I suggest you detemine the meanings before selecting the words for your post. Or- have someone with an education help you with them.
'poignantly' means moving, touching. Is that what you meant? I thought not.
'succinct' means expressed in few words; concise.

'nebulous pigeon-hole' mean 'vague, indistinct specific compartment' What is wrong with you?

Please confirm that English is not your first language.

"aren't you merely claiming this whole time that you wished the SCOTUS decided to see things your way"
No.
Where does this come from, aside from a fevered imagination.

The idea has nothing to do with mindset, but with training and expertise.

A proper debate requires that each side understand what the other is saying, and an agreement on terms.

But I've read your posts, and note that you will have difficulty in understanding that.

no, you're free to read my posts for what they say as you've defined them. i'd have said succinct if i felt it captured the 'she's an idiot' epiphany i was overcome with when that was your only response to editec's post.

anyhow, your definitions thing is a joke to me, really.

..

you have, indeed, raised a qualm over what the SCOTUS has decided, and argued it didnt fit with your interpretation.

Progressivism was the first American political movement based primarily on the criticism and deconstruction of the Constitution. The Constitution provided the framework for limited government. The checks and balances, strictly interpreted, prevent such ideas as redistribution for ‘social justice,’ thus, the "living Constitution."

in the statement above you've criticized the court's findings, then loaded the justification with your opinion as to how they should have decided (note 'strictly interpreted').

your extreme right-wing fringe lunacy contingent, thank god, has neither had its posture upheld, nor represented in politics for a century here, if ever. you are merely sour grapes over the fact and characterized the state of the union as an affront to the constitution based on how you would have interpreted it. although, you wont accept that, it's the truth evident to those not on the wingtip with you.

Methinks you protest too much.

You use words incorrectly, and this also represents your ability with ideas. Clearly, you were unaware of the meaning of poignantly, as it was not the only work you misused. And now you choose to cover embarrassment with a lie? How liberal of you.

You write poorly, and it reflects in your thinking as well.

"...you've criticized the court's findings..." This stretch is a transparent attempt to make it seem that your point, such as it is, has some import. It does not. Nor does it restore any semblance of honesty to your post.

The checks and balances are embedded throughout the Constitution.


Before you next post, you should consider asking yourself” Do I really want the word ‘moron’ in my obituary?”

yeah. clearly i don't know what poignant means, or write worth a shit.

lets set some definitions for the argument then:

are you saying that you don't contest the decisions which upheld progressive legislation?

my comprehension is a bit shot, too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

These are fascinating concepts and do provide an expanded perspective.

My response summarized:

Conservatives recognize basic values and tradition that have served us and all humanity well and believe these are worth defending and emulating and incorporating into the social contract.

Liberals tend to scorn such basic values and tradition and diminish them because of some imperfection perceived to be associated with them.

Even as there are many noble liberals who become our friends, it does seem to be the trend of liberalism to consider itself the better example of moral virtue, to see itself as better people, more noble, more worthy, more intelligent, better educated, and less selfish than those describing themselves as conservative. It manifests itself into a kind of snobbish elitism granting itself license and authority to judge, and if possible manage by force those who do not share its their elitist views.

PC's definition:

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

Liberals seem to believe that right motives are sufficient for success, and results should not be counted as any part of virtue.

PC's definition


Conservatives believe government should secure their rights and then leave them alone to order their society and live their lives in any manner that they choose.

Liberals believe it is the people's role to conform to the dictates of government.

PC's Definition:


Conservatives go with the Lockean principle that property is a natural right, it precedes government, and government should not be able to take or dispose of private property arbitrarily.

Liberals tend to look at all property as belonging to the whole, and the whole (i.e. government) should decide what part of that property each person should have available to him/her.

PC's definition:


Conservatives know that the only noble charity is that which is given voluntarily and know that there is much danger that government dispensing charity will corrupt both itself and those receiving it.

Liberals tend to feel righteous when the property of others is confiscated and given to somebody else. They see redistribution of wealth and equality of results as a rightful role of government.

PC's definition


This one might be a bit unfair. I think both Conservatives and liberals see people as good and bad, but the Conservative view is that there are consequences, both good and bad, for the choices we make. We serve best by encouraging, teaching, or demonstrating how to make better choices.

I think Liberals split their personality on this one. They condemn those who are not liberals for the choices they make. They tend to look at everybody else as victims of society when they make poor choices.

PC's definition:

8) Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9) Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

Conservative: Evaluate and judge all things by the results, toss out what doesn't work, keep what does work, and value excellence.
Liberal: Good motives are more important than results and need takes precedence over ability.

10) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

Conservatives: Judge all by what they do, not who they are.
Liberals: Judge all by who they are, not by what they do.

Just two comments on your post.

As to #5, yes, Locke said "Life, Liberty, and Property." Why did the Founders alter the phrase to replace property with the pursuit of happiness? Because of the invidious topic: slavery. They knew that the problem would have to be settled at some future date, and didn't want the term property to allow slave holders to claim the Constitution validated it.

In #7, here I disagree. A major difference between the two view is over the nature of man. Checks and balances were meant to restrain the evil in man, as in "If men were Angels, no government would be necessary." Note Federalist #10.
Progressives believe that man's nature is plastic, and can be changed by the correct governmental policies.
Totalitarians, such as communists, or progressives, see man in the following way:

Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature. “The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский челове&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's long-standing cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.[1]

Leon Trotsky wrote in his Literature and Revolution [2] :
"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will"
New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

no, you're free to read my posts for what they say as you've defined them. i'd have said succinct if i felt it captured the 'she's an idiot' epiphany i was overcome with when that was your only response to editec's post.

anyhow, your definitions thing is a joke to me, really.

..

you have, indeed, raised a qualm over what the SCOTUS has decided, and argued it didnt fit with your interpretation.



in the statement above you've criticized the court's findings, then loaded the justification with your opinion as to how they should have decided (note 'strictly interpreted').

your extreme right-wing fringe lunacy contingent, thank god, has neither had its posture upheld, nor represented in politics for a century here, if ever. you are merely sour grapes over the fact and characterized the state of the union as an affront to the constitution based on how you would have interpreted it. although, you wont accept that, it's the truth evident to those not on the wingtip with you.

Methinks you protest too much.

You use words incorrectly, and this also represents your ability with ideas. Clearly, you were unaware of the meaning of poignantly, as it was not the only work you misused. And now you choose to cover embarrassment with a lie? How liberal of you.

You write poorly, and it reflects in your thinking as well.

"...you've criticized the court's findings..." This stretch is a transparent attempt to make it seem that your point, such as it is, has some import. It does not. Nor does it restore any semblance of honesty to your post.

The checks and balances are embedded throughout the Constitution.


Before you next post, you should consider asking yourself” Do I really want the word ‘moron’ in my obituary?”

yeah. clearly i don't know what poignant means, or write worth a shit.

lets set some definitions for the argument then:

are you saying that you don't contest the decisions which upheld progressive legislation?

my comprehension is a bit shot, too.

I find you dishonest.

Be gone.