MEMO To: Republicans, GOPers, RWers and Self-Proclaimed Conservatives

[del]

Are you trying to defend the notion that Wallace, Thurmond, Maddox et al were either sterling Liberals or fought hard to ensure civil rights for Black Americans? really? Could you provide their bona fides as champions of civil rights?

Or, are you saying that they were not Conservatives? That Maddox, Thurmond and Wallace represented the left wing of the Democrat party. That they were champions of Liberal causes like civil rights, voter registration rights, environmental safeguards and withdrawl from the meat grinder that was Vietnam?

Wallace was a racist. In political terms he was in many respects ALSO a conservative, but that is incidental and apart from his political ideology.

The same could be said of Maddox and Thurmond.

You and guys like you love to engage in vastly over-simplified generalizations -- and many of you do that kind of short-cut to actual thought for a reason.

The truth is pretty simple. There is no NECESSARY correlation between political ideology and racism. If there are historical examples of some political conservatives also being racist, you are pretending to see some kind of cause and effect that doesn't exist.

Anybody worthy of the name "conservative" values liberty and equality of opportunity and neither of those things is in the slightest little bit consonant with racism.

By very sad contrast, you modern American "liberals" tend to mostly be stinking STATISTS. You value the authority and power of the STATE to accomplish for "the masses" what individual liberty and responsibility says people should WANT TO accomplish on their own. By granting to the STATE that kind of authority and power, you undermine personal liberty -- thus making oppression the totally expected outcome.

If one looks at just the RESULTS of the crap you people "do," it could almost be argued that you are vile racists. You find blacks in a disadvantaged position in society (due to the undeniable fact of past racial discrimination) and you and your ilk paternalistically "provide" FOR "them" as though you can't grasp the notion that blacks can provide very well for themselves if everyone is treated equally and the government would stop placing (or attempting to place) restrictions on our individual liberties.

entitlements are a political solution to a political problem. Jim Crow South wasn't just a custom foisted by racists. It was state mandated bigotry.

Your contention that Blacks can take care of themselves very well ignores that basic fact.

And, since that bigotry was protected by state law, the citizens of those states were free to maintain their bigoted attitudes. And its those attitudes which are responsible for the poverty and unemployment rate among blacks. Section Eight housing vouchers, food stamps, welfare checks are mere stop gap measures redressing the imbalance of state mandated bigotry perpetuated by ideological Conservatives.

open a window.

 

[AllieBaba]

Democrats were the conservative party of the 19th century. Why is it so hard for you people to understand that? Are you simply stupid?

Southern Democrats were the conservative wing of the Democratic party in the 20th century.

This is about CONSERVATISM being on the wrong side of history again and again and again.

The very fact that you don't support slavery or segregation (presumably) is because the progressives/liberals of those times WON and the conservatives of those times LOST.

Each generation of conservatives becomes more liberal than the last, because the liberal victories that inevitably occur in each general become the status quo of the future.

Conservatives fought against women's suffrage; how many conservatives do you hear nowadays that want to take away a woman's right to vote? Not many. That's because their conservative predecessors were, as usual, WRONG.

Currently and recently, for example, conservatives have been fighting to keep gays out of the military. Before long, conservatives will lose that battle, and a generation or so from now mainstream American conservatism will have NO interest in kicking gays out of the military.

First--The Democratic Party is a PLURISTS party that contains Conservatives members.
They were always a Plurists party. There is, and never existed, a liberal party in the United States. Something for a lefty to really chew hard on.(To keep this in perspective, the Republican Party is a Center-Right Party constantly dominated by Conservatives!)

Second--Republicans also fought for women's rights, civil rights, and against slavery. Democrats nor liberal dominate those issues. Remember, there exist "American Libertarians"--right wingers that argue for social liberal ideas.

Third--concerning gays in the military. That battle is basically over, now we are going through the political motions of removing DADT without the politicians losing their jobs. The opposition is so pathetically weak that the media refuse to cover them out of fear of losing creditability!

Yeah, Saddam Hussein's elite military force was called the Republican Guard. Does that make them Republicans with some sort of an association with current American Republicans?

Now, if you're answer is NO!! that's ridiculous! then MAYBE you can figure out that talking about 1850's conservatives in the South who called themselves Democrats having some sort of association with modern American Democrats is equally ridiculous.

So stop being ridiculous, all of you.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, modern day conservative Republicans don't think much of REPUBLICAN president Abraham Lincoln and all his big government preserve-the-union secession-is-illegal nonsense...

...eh?

The southern democrats have not changed all that much in the last 150 years, aside from geography.

All the bigoted fat cat good old boys known as southern democrats have just moved. Now they're fat cat good old boys from places like Chicago, LA and NYC.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First--The Democratic Party is a PLURISTS party that contains Conservatives members.
They were always a Plurists party. There is, and never existed, a liberal party in the United States. Something for a lefty to really chew hard on.(To keep this in perspective, the Republican Party is a Center-Right Party constantly dominated by Conservatives!)

Second--Republicans also fought for women's rights, civil rights, and against slavery. Democrats nor liberal dominate those issues. Remember, there exist "American Libertarians"--right wingers that argue for social liberal ideas.

Third--concerning gays in the military. That battle is basically over, now we are going through the political motions of removing DADT without the politicians losing their jobs. The opposition is so pathetically weak that the media refuse to cover them out of fear of losing creditability!

Yeah, Saddam Hussein's elite military force was called the Republican Guard. Does that make them Republicans with some sort of an association with current American Republicans?

Now, if you're answer is NO!! that's ridiculous! then MAYBE you can figure out that talking about 1850's conservatives in the South who called themselves Democrats having some sort of association with modern American Democrats is equally ridiculous.

So stop being ridiculous, all of you.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, modern day conservative Republicans don't think much of REPUBLICAN president Abraham Lincoln and all his big government preserve-the-union secession-is-illegal nonsense...

...eh?

The southern democrats have not changed all that much in the last 150 years, aside from geography.

All the bigoted fat cat good old boys known as southern democrats have just moved. Now they're fat cat good old boys from places like Chicago, LA and NYC.

^ What he/she said!!

 

[Harry Dresden]

Conservatives oppose anyone who isn't Conservative.

and Democrats oppose anyone who isnt Liberal.....so gee i guess both parties have the same attitude.....

Democrats have opposed Liberals. Big time! I refer you as an example to Strom Thurmond. He was plenty Democrat, up until he threatened the Dixiecrat walk out of the Democrat party in 1948.

He was, however, a Conservative.

For other Democrats opposing Liberals, see George Wallace, Lester Maddox and a raft of Conservatives fighting hard to oppress African Americans.

and i have seen many Conservatives oppose the right wingers in their party....so what else do you have?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Conservatives DID NOT want to free the slaves.

Conservatives were against Medicare.

Conservatives say they wanted to stop terrorism, but let Bin Laden go and invaded the WRONG country.

Conservatives tried to bankrupt the country with a 2.5 trillion dollar tax cut and two unpaid wars costing 3 trillion and a 7 trillion dollar gift to the drug companies.

Don't fucking lie. Sick of conservative lies and the attempt to rewrite history. Just stop.

Might as well ask them to shut up and die, because they will NOT stop with the lies.

most people here respond to questions asked of statements made by them.....your one who does not....like post no 5....but you ignore certain posters questions quite often....so its no surprise....some people lie....some dance around questions.....

 

[gslack]

Consider this. When Civil Rights was the hot button issue, which of the two predominant political ideologies fought against reform: Liberals or Conservatives.

Use the same paradigm for Women's rights, gay rights, environmental regulations, workplace safety regulations, child labor regulations, food and drug safety regulations.

Thus you will see that Conservatism is consistently behind the curve of history. Conservatism provides the stopping block to societal freedom and advancement.

Why? Because Conservatism occupies its focus on property rights, corporate rights and deregulation. Removing cops from the beat, so to speak.

Free market Capitalism is a dead end street. The absence of regulation makes a market place rife with risky speculators and manipulation for the benefit of the very few, and at the expense of the many.

I've been around for a long time now and I can tell you that the same ideology that 'guided' Wallace, Maddox and Thurmond is the exact same ideology that 'guides' the modern American Conservative.

WOW, you didn't read it at all??

Conservatism= new ideology

You cannot attribute past thinking and ideologies to the modern conservative its impossible ..

You can't just say it's a new ideology and make it true! Conservatism is not a "new" ideology. Conservatism dates back to the inception of the Republic.

How far back does your experience with Conservatism go? How far back does this "new" ideology extend?

I don't have to SAY its a new ideology, it simply is a new ideology. Its just a silly argument to pretend its not. Were hippies democrat or republican? Well they hated Nixon so doubtful they were republican, and they didn't like the vietnam war either so they couldn't have been Democrat. What about Jefferson? We knew his party was named Republican but they died out way before Lincoln and the New Republicans. So was he a conservative? Can't say realy because he sounded liberal to me, but then again what was liberal back then?

Please I asked once before if you can point me to who the conservative party was back then... The fact is no one can because modern conservatism (the one the OP refers to) wasn't around back then...

The fact is the modern conservative is a product of modern times. just as the federalists were products of their time. Ideologies change to suit the times, this is undeniable.

Southern democrats filibustered civil rights legislation 57 straight days, so were they conservatives as we view them today? No the modern conservative seeks small government and fiscal responsibility according to their ideology. Yet southern democrats only difference to other democrats at the time in essence was civil rights legislation. they agreed with the "new deal" of FDR which the modern liberal democrat is so quick to claim as their own party's dealings. So they were not exactly conservatives....

They like to say "southern democrats" because it makes a little distance from the embarrassment. The fact is they were democrats, they backed "new deal", they were for social services, bigger government, and all the rest of it.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Get the memo. Get a clue. Wake up!

You are wrong!

Your party is going down...in flames.

You are NOT the majority...not on this one.

You were wrong on slavery, wrong on segragation, wrong on women's rights, wrong on Medicaid/Medicare, wrong on Vietnam, wrong on your response to 9-11. Wrong, Wrong. Wrong!

You lost.

Its over.

Put down your guns, put down your rocks, put down your signs, put down your flags...

Go home.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/110898-memo-to-marcatl.html

 

[Foxfyre]

WOW, you didn't read it at all??

Conservatism= new ideology

You cannot attribute past thinking and ideologies to the modern conservative its impossible ..

You can't just say it's a new ideology and make it true! Conservatism is not a "new" ideology. Conservatism dates back to the inception of the Republic.

How far back does your experience with Conservatism go? How far back does this "new" ideology extend?

I don't have to SAY its a new ideology, it simply is a new ideology. Its just a silly argument to pretend its not. Were hippies democrat or republican? Well they hated Nixon so doubtful they were republican, and they didn't like the vietnam war either so they couldn't have been Democrat. What about Jefferson? We knew his party was named Republican but they died out way before Lincoln and the New Republicans. So was he a conservative? Can't say realy because he sounded liberal to me, but then again what was liberal back then?

Please I asked once before if you can point me to who the conservative party was back then... The fact is no one can because modern conservatism (the one the OP refers to) wasn't around back then...

The fact is the modern conservative is a product of modern times. just as the federalists were products of their time. Ideologies change to suit the times, this is undeniable.

Southern democrats filibustered civil rights legislation 57 straight days, so were they conservatives as we view them today? No the modern conservative seeks small government and fiscal responsibility according to their ideology. Yet southern democrats only difference to other democrats at the time in essence was civil rights legislation. they agreed with the "new deal" of FDR which the modern liberal democrat is so quick to claim as their own party's dealings. So they were not exactly conservatives....

They like to say "southern democrats" because it makes a little distance from the embarrassment. The fact is they were democrats, they backed "new deal", they were for social services, bigger government, and all the rest of it.

I think you're wrong. I think modern American conservatism IS the conservatism of the Founders including Jefferson. But they weren't called conservatives then. They were revolutionaries, freedom fighters, and even at times mercenaries with a vision and a goal of achieving liberty for a nation.

In the truest sense they were what are sometimes now referred to as Classical Liberals to distinguish them from modern American liberals. Classical Liberalism is defined (adapted from Wiki) as follows:

Classical Liberalism or Modern American Conservatism
(adapted from Wiki)

Modern American Conservatism (MAC)/Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism, is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of MAC/classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.

Classical Liberals/MACs promote strong national defense and necessary regulation to prevent the citiziens/states from doing violence to each other, but are otherwise strong state's rights advocates and are suspicious of all but the most minimal federal government necessary to perform its Constitutional mandates and object to most of a federal welfare state.

Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, are credited with influencing a revival of classical liberalism in the late twentieth century after it fell out of favor beginning in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century. In relation to economic issues, this revival is sometimes referred to, mainly by its opponents, as "neoliberalism". The German "ordoliberalism" has a whole different meaning, since the likes of Alexander Rüstow and Wilhelm Rööpke have advocated a more interventionist state, as opposed to laissez-faire liberals. Classical liberalism has many aspects in common with modern libertarianism, with the terms being used almost interchangeably by those who support limited government.

 

[gslack]

You can't just say it's a new ideology and make it true! Conservatism is not a "new" ideology. Conservatism dates back to the inception of the Republic.

How far back does your experience with Conservatism go? How far back does this "new" ideology extend?

I don't have to SAY its a new ideology, it simply is a new ideology. Its just a silly argument to pretend its not. Were hippies democrat or republican? Well they hated Nixon so doubtful they were republican, and they didn't like the vietnam war either so they couldn't have been Democrat. What about Jefferson? We knew his party was named Republican but they died out way before Lincoln and the New Republicans. So was he a conservative? Can't say realy because he sounded liberal to me, but then again what was liberal back then?

Please I asked once before if you can point me to who the conservative party was back then... The fact is no one can because modern conservatism (the one the OP refers to) wasn't around back then...

The fact is the modern conservative is a product of modern times. just as the federalists were products of their time. Ideologies change to suit the times, this is undeniable.

Southern democrats filibustered civil rights legislation 57 straight days, so were they conservatives as we view them today? No the modern conservative seeks small government and fiscal responsibility according to their ideology. Yet southern democrats only difference to other democrats at the time in essence was civil rights legislation. they agreed with the "new deal" of FDR which the modern liberal democrat is so quick to claim as their own party's dealings. So they were not exactly conservatives....

They like to say "southern democrats" because it makes a little distance from the embarrassment. The fact is they were democrats, they backed "new deal", they were for social services, bigger government, and all the rest of it.

I think you're wrong. I think modern American conservatism IS the conservatism of the Founders including Jefferson. But they weren't called conservatives then. They were revolutionaries, freedom fighters, and even at times mercenaries with a vision and a goal of achieving liberty for a nation.

In the truest sense they were what are sometimes now referred to as Classical Liberals to distinguish them from modern American liberals. Classical Liberalism is defined (adapted from Wiki) as follows:

Classical Liberalism or Modern American Conservatism
(adapted from Wiki)

Modern American Conservatism (MAC)/Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism, is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of MAC/classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.

Classical Liberals/MACs promote strong national defense and necessary regulation to prevent the citiziens/states from doing violence to each other, but are otherwise strong state's rights advocates and are suspicious of all but the most minimal federal government necessary to perform its Constitutional mandates and object to most of a federal welfare state.

Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, are credited with influencing a revival of classical liberalism in the late twentieth century after it fell out of favor beginning in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century. In relation to economic issues, this revival is sometimes referred to, mainly by its opponents, as "neoliberalism". The German "ordoliberalism" has a whole different meaning, since the likes of Alexander Rüstow and Wilhelm Rööpke have advocated a more interventionist state, as opposed to laissez-faire liberals. Classical liberalism has many aspects in common with modern libertarianism, with the terms being used almost interchangeably by those who support limited government.

I think they were unique to their time and circumstances, maybe their spirit lives on in some aspects but they were not really identifiable to any modern ideology in my humble opinion anyway...

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't have to SAY its a new ideology, it simply is a new ideology. Its just a silly argument to pretend its not. Were hippies democrat or republican? Well they hated Nixon so doubtful they were republican, and they didn't like the vietnam war either so they couldn't have been Democrat. What about Jefferson? We knew his party was named Republican but they died out way before Lincoln and the New Republicans. So was he a conservative? Can't say realy because he sounded liberal to me, but then again what was liberal back then?

Please I asked once before if you can point me to who the conservative party was back then... The fact is no one can because modern conservatism (the one the OP refers to) wasn't around back then...

The fact is the modern conservative is a product of modern times. just as the federalists were products of their time. Ideologies change to suit the times, this is undeniable.

Southern democrats filibustered civil rights legislation 57 straight days, so were they conservatives as we view them today? No the modern conservative seeks small government and fiscal responsibility according to their ideology. Yet southern democrats only difference to other democrats at the time in essence was civil rights legislation. they agreed with the "new deal" of FDR which the modern liberal democrat is so quick to claim as their own party's dealings. So they were not exactly conservatives....

They like to say "southern democrats" because it makes a little distance from the embarrassment. The fact is they were democrats, they backed "new deal", they were for social services, bigger government, and all the rest of it.

I think you're wrong. I think modern American conservatism IS the conservatism of the Founders including Jefferson. But they weren't called conservatives then. They were revolutionaries, freedom fighters, and even at times mercenaries with a vision and a goal of achieving liberty for a nation.

In the truest sense they were what are sometimes now referred to as Classical Liberals to distinguish them from modern American liberals. Classical Liberalism is defined (adapted from Wiki) as follows:

Classical Liberalism or Modern American Conservatism
(adapted from Wiki)

Modern American Conservatism (MAC)/Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism, is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of MAC/classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.

Classical Liberals/MACs promote strong national defense and necessary regulation to prevent the citiziens/states from doing violence to each other, but are otherwise strong state's rights advocates and are suspicious of all but the most minimal federal government necessary to perform its Constitutional mandates and object to most of a federal welfare state.

Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, are credited with influencing a revival of classical liberalism in the late twentieth century after it fell out of favor beginning in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century. In relation to economic issues, this revival is sometimes referred to, mainly by its opponents, as "neoliberalism". The German "ordoliberalism" has a whole different meaning, since the likes of Alexander Rüstow and Wilhelm Rööpke have advocated a more interventionist state, as opposed to laissez-faire liberals. Classical liberalism has many aspects in common with modern libertarianism, with the terms being used almost interchangeably by those who support limited government.

I think they were unique to their time and circumstances, maybe their spirit lives on in some aspects but they were not really identifiable to any modern ideology in my humble opinion anyway...

So how were the Founders different from the Classical Liberals described above?

How are the modern Tea Partiers different from the Classical Liberals described above.

And if you can't find any differences, then modern conservatism was alive and well then and now. And that is the ideology being promoted no matter what label you attach to it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Get the memo. Get a clue. Wake up!

You are wrong!

Your party is going down...in flames.

You are NOT the majority...not on this one.

You were wrong on slavery, wrong on segragation, wrong on women's rights, wrong on Medicaid/Medicare, wrong on Vietnam, wrong on your response to 9-11. Wrong, Wrong. Wrong!

You lost.

Its over.

Put down your guns, put down your rocks, put down your signs, put down your flags...

Go home.

This is our home, moron. I find it hard to believe that somebody so stupid is able to breathe. You might want to research some of those claims you've made. Republicans were the original abolitionists.

 

[Munin]

You wonder.



The Democratics willfully violated the Constitution. They practically raped the whole basis of our governance. They used the Constitution as a form of toilet paper. And the GOP proudly and unanimously called them on it and tried to stop them.

When it comes to the improper, illicit and UnConstitutional behavior and actions of the Democrat Parody, the GOP should be VERY proud of being the Party of NO. The ONLY proper answer to what the Democratics have done (and attempted and threatened) to do IS "NO!"

If something is really unconstitutional (against the law) then you should take it to court, put your money where your mouth is. That s how the law works. My guess is that whoever will take it to court will loose, the president was not for nothing a lawyer/ law professor at the University ...

He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years; as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching constitutional law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Let him teach you a lesson in humility, maybe you ll learn something about the constitution

 

[saveliberty]

You wonder.



The Democratics willfully violated the Constitution. They practically raped the whole basis of our governance. They used the Constitution as a form of toilet paper. And the GOP proudly and unanimously called them on it and tried to stop them.

When it comes to the improper, illicit and UnConstitutional behavior and actions of the Democrat Parody, the GOP should be VERY proud of being the Party of NO. The ONLY proper answer to what the Democratics have done (and attempted and threatened) to do IS "NO!"

If something is really unconstitutional (against the law) then you should take it to court, put your money where your mouth is. That s how the law works. My guess is that whoever will take it to court will loose, the president was not for nothing a lawyer/ law professor at the University ...

He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years; as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching constitutional law.

Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let him teach you a lesson in humility, maybe you ll learn something about the constitution

Lesson one in law school: Don't tick off the presiding judge(s). 0bama step in that one.

The last thing 0bama is going to teach anyone is humility, honesty or transparency.

You have to show injury before you can go to court. As soon as 0bama did that, multiple attorneys general filed. Why would I take him to court? Your just totally off base and illiterate as far as law goes.

 

[Munin]

Lesson one in law school: Don't tick off the presiding judge(s). 0bama step in that one.

The last thing 0bama is going to teach anyone is humility, honesty or transparency.

You have to show injury before you can go to court. As soon as 0bama did that, multiple attorneys general filed. Why would I take him to court? Your just totally off base and illiterate as far as law goes.

Don't see an issue with that if you claim that the implemented laws are affecting you (and you claim them to be harmful to you). Any law that is unconstitutional can be challenged and probably will be challenged.

 

[AllieBaba]

How many states are filing suit again?

 

[Si modo]

How many states are filing suit again?

Last I heard, 13. If there haven't been more, there will be.

Virginia is standing quite firm, too. They seem to have a good history of exercising their rights.

 

[gslack]

I think you're wrong. I think modern American conservatism IS the conservatism of the Founders including Jefferson. But they weren't called conservatives then. They were revolutionaries, freedom fighters, and even at times mercenaries with a vision and a goal of achieving liberty for a nation.

In the truest sense they were what are sometimes now referred to as Classical Liberals to distinguish them from modern American liberals. Classical Liberalism is defined (adapted from Wiki) as follows:

I think they were unique to their time and circumstances, maybe their spirit lives on in some aspects but they were not really identifiable to any modern ideology in my humble opinion anyway...

So how were the Founders different from the Classical Liberals described above?

How are the modern Tea Partiers different from the Classical Liberals described above.

And if you can't find any differences, then modern conservatism was alive and well then and now. And that is the ideology being promoted no matter what label you attach to it.

Help me out here because I missed the part in that classical liberal definition pertaining to abortion... And the part regarding social programs, unified health care, deficit spending, etc...

Classical liberalism is gone. It was alive back then and served its purpose then like all other ideologies parts of it died off and some parts adapted to suit the times. Just like classical everything else. A building can go hundreds of years relatively unchanged because it has substance in the real world. We can see it, touch it, feel it and realize it is a building. But an ideology cannot remain the same and survive. An Ideology is a thought, a feeling, a decision and those are not substance in and of themselves. They may lead to elements that have substance, like a sense of freedom led to the bill of rights, the bill is the substance not the sense of freedom.

Virtually any and every party can claim they are the REAL this or that ideology, or that they are the modern representation of that. But the reality is those ideologies spoke of the times which they were born, and cannot translate to the modern world. Almost everyone in the modern world agrees the idea of birthright and class systems are barbaric, but back then there was only a handful of countries who would agree with that. SO back then it was important to the founders to shed themselves of class systems and it showed in their works.

Do we need to be told today that a person isn't born better than you or I by some divine right? no of course not, but back then it was a new concept. A concept people felt in there hearts, but precious few took the courage to put into action or words. The adaption of the bill of rights was a testament to ending class rule.

Ever read the UN charter? They have a bill of rights too. It isn't the same as ours at all, it has some things added and some removed. The reason is it reflects the times and the desires, needs, thoughts, and feelings of the people it pertains to today.

This is getting longer than I intended it to be, I will end this in saying I stand by what I said. Those past ideologies are in the past and the modern ones hold sway for the time. In 20 years we will have new ideologies, and parties or groups will claim they are the old ways brought back or some such, when in reality they are modern ideologies created to suit the needs of today. They may borrow from the old but they are formed to fit the world they live in.

 

[saveliberty]

So I guess having a Constitution is just a waste of paper? Those first ten amendments are just out of touch?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How many states are filing suit again?

VA, new Republican governor. Elections have consequences, ya know.

 

[Liability]

How many states are filing suit again?

VA, new Republican governor. Elections have consequences, ya know.

Yep. We collectively put President Obama into Office with a Senate super Majority and a significant House Majority. We have been suffering the consequences ever since.

Now, maybe, the old worm has started to turn.

As you noted, Virginia turned OUT the Democrat and ushered IN a Republican and now Virginia is challenging Obamacare in Court.

Excellent.

The liberal Main Stream Media pundits are pontificating how difficult it is likely to be to persuade the SCOTUS (eventually) to reject a Congressional Act on such fundamental Constitutional grounds. To me, that thinking makes no sense.

If an Act violates the Constitution, then the Court shouldn't even hesitate to step in.

How the idiots liberal Dims can imagine that the Constitution permits them to dictate to individual Americans that they are OBLIGED to "buy" insurance is beyond rational explanation. How they can imagine that it doesn't violate the limited authority granted to the Federal Government is even more difficult to fathom.

It may not go down in every respect, but certain components of the God-forsaken Health Care bill, now "law," IS clearly gonna go down -- hard.

And if the Courts are not willing to do theeir job on something this fundamental and crystal clear, the only remaining hope is FEDERALISM. The States (at least those with brains and balls) MUST simply nullify that bullshit law.