The Conservative Contradiction

[Yukon.]

Killing innocent men, women, and children does not warrant a pension.

 

[Charles_Main]

Contradiction

Oppose Abortion but support the Death Penalty

Oppose Big Government getting involved in your personal choices but oppose Gay Marriage

My favorite contradiction is the ardent Tenth Amendment-ers who're all for across-state lines health insurance purchasing and national tort reform, both of which are assertions of federal dominance over state law.

LOL only because we have no choice. Health Reform of some kind or Another was going to happen. We have to do something. It is called making a compromise. If the Left knew how to do that, we might actually be getting shit that WORKS done and not just A slew of Ideologically driven Monstrosities.

We are well Aware that Tort Reform would not jive with the Spirit of the Constitution, However what the Left wants, whether it be single payer, or something like Britain's NHS, Would be a much bigger and far reaching Violation of the Constitution In many peoples minds so you make a compromise.

Tort Reform just makes sense. It is an undeniable fact that the Cost of Malpractice Insurance, Plus the cost of Millions of Doctors doing extra tests, and taking every measure to cover their ass, Is a part of the reason why Health Care is so expensive.

Allowing people to shop for Insurance across state lines is not unconstitutional as someone else pointed out it clearly would fall under the Inter state Commerce Clause.

 

[Greenbeard]

We are well Aware that Tort Reform would not jive with the Spirit of the Constitution

I honestly didn't see that coming. Okay.

Tort Reform just makes sense.

The evil, ideological liberal approach (if we're to judge from the reform bill) seems to be to provide grants to states to test alternatives to their current tort laws.

Sec. 10607. State demonstration programs to evaluate alternatives to current medical tort litigation. Authorizes grants to States to test alternatives to civil tort litigation. These models would be required to emphasize patient safety, the disclosure of health care errors, and the early resolution of disputes. Patients would be able to opt-out of these alternatives at any time. The Secretary of HHS would be required to conduct an evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the alternatives.​

Allowing people to shop for Insurance across state lines is not unconstitutional as someone else pointed out it clearly would fall under the Inter state Commerce Clause.

I didn't say it's unconstitutional. It is, however, a federal override of state laws to achieve a policy outcome you prefer. And that seems strangely out of character.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Contradiction

Oppose Abortion but support the Death Penalty

Oppose Big Government getting involved in your personal choices but oppose Gay Marriage

Contradiction.

Support abortion but oppose the death penalty.

Support big government foisting health care on us, and oppose them blocking the states from permitting late term abortions.

For every example of right wing "hypocrisy" anyone posts I can find the opposite on the left. This is not a contradiction, or even hypocrisy, unless you ignore it in yourself. It is human nature, and everyone holds opinions that would seem to contradict another opinion, it is the way our brains work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So many people claim to be conservative out of one side of their mouth, but out the other they bitch and moan about the terrible state of the status quo and lobby for decidedly progressive change. The only theoretically conservative position they hold is abject opposition to all progressive iniatives for change championed by the left. But their opposition is clearly not borne of conservatism, but rather a conflicting progressive agenda.

True conservatives would oppose radical progressivism from both wings. Faux-conservatives seem to only oppose it when it's coming from left.

And that's a shame.

Liberals should also oppose radical progressive ideas from both sides, not just the right. Ever wonder what happened to those liberals who thought personal choice was worth fighting for?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So many people claim to be conservative out of one side of their mouth, but out the other they bitch and moan about the terrible state of the status quo and lobby for decidedly progressive change. The only theoretically conservative position they hold is abject opposition to all progressive iniatives for change championed by the left. But their opposition is clearly not borne of conservatism, but rather a conflicting progressive agenda.

True conservatives would oppose radical progressivism from both wings. Faux-conservatives seem to only oppose it when it's coming from left.

And that's a shame.

The big lies from the repugs are that they hate "Big Government", except when they want it.

"We don't want some government bureaucrat telling doctors what to do." "We don't want the government in the operating room or the doctor's office." Except when it comes to abortion. Then they are all about "The Government Telling Doctors What To Do."

Bushie Baby grew the government, and the national debt, the repugs followed in lock step.

I didn't see the Democrats organizing a rebellion to any of that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Contradiction

Oppose Abortion but support the Death Penalty

Oppose Big Government getting involved in your personal choices but oppose Gay Marriage

My favorite contradiction is the ardent Tenth Amendment-ers who're all for across-state lines health insurance purchasing and national tort reform, both of which are assertions of federal dominance over state law.

Not to mention if you try to establish gun control rules at the state or local level

I thought you opposed the rights of states to restrict civil rights. Why do you support it when it comes to things you personally oppose?

See what I mean about everyone being in that boat?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Killing innocent men, women, and children does not warrant a pension.

Serving in the military does not equal killing anyone, innocent or guilty, but nice try to look stupid, it succeeded.

 

[American Horse]

Lower taxes huh...

Lower than what?

Heh. Some people just want to say no taxes but realize that sounds completely moronic.

Who, in your opinion would that be?

 

[rightwinger]

My favorite contradiction is the ardent Tenth Amendment-ers who're all for across-state lines health insurance purchasing and national tort reform, both of which are assertions of federal dominance over state law.

Not to mention if you try to establish gun control rules at the state or local level

I thought you opposed the rights of states to restrict civil rights. Why do you support it when it comes to things you personally oppose?

See what I mean about everyone being in that boat?

It comes down to you either support states rights or you don't. Why can't a state decide which weapons its citizens are allowed to keep?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not to mention if you try to establish gun control rules at the state or local level

I thought you opposed the rights of states to restrict civil rights. Why do you support it when it comes to things you personally oppose?

See what I mean about everyone being in that boat?

It comes down to you either support states rights or you don't. Why can't a state decide which weapons its citizens are allowed to keep?

Because the 14th amendment says they can't.

I support the constitutional exercise of states rights, not states rights as a blanket policy.

 

[code1211]

Look at the thing that ended the prosperity of the 80s-90s: the Iraq War, the costs of which have been hidden. Without Iraq and Bush, you would never have had 2008 and the death of the American economy -- and therefore, you would never have had Obama, who clearly lacks the experience to lead.

But seriously. Look at the premise of the War on Terrorism, i.e., defeating evil. Erecting Universal Democracy.

This is more liberal than anything in FDR or LBJ, and it is more utopian than anything in Marx.

Conservatives tell people Washington isn't fit to run a laundromat, but, somehow, it is fit to rebuild entire Arab nations. This contradiction would NEVER have passed muster in a party with real Conservatives.

America counted on Conservatives to be cold-eyed realists. Conservatives are known for keeping political goals within reasonable limits -- they are moderate & cautious when it comes to BIG changes and BIG projects. In the 40s, it was the Conservatives who opposed Truman's Cold War machinations; indeed, the Conservatives were America's last best hope to avoid the bankruptcy involved with global expansion; they knew you couldn't take over and rebuild whole nations. They understood the paralyzing costs of empire, and the dangers of the liberal desire to create a perfect world. They also applied this logic domestically: they warned LBJ that attempts to end poverty, while noble, would lead to bankruptcy. You can't throw money at the impossible. Government can't change the temperature or create a utopia; it should stick to filling pot holes, and let people keep more of the money they slave for. Indeed, the Conservatives say you have to accept the world's imperfections. Poverty and evil will always exist. Washington cannot control these things from the top down with good intentions and Pentagon bureaucrats. Controlling the world for the better is a liberal delusion that always leads to unintended consequences.

But you ignored all of it. Why? Because Talk Radio and FOX news replaced real Conservatism with paranoid revanchism. It created a generation of illiterate Republicans whose knowledge of theoretical Conservatism was limited to incoherent blogosphere ranting.

When Bush marched you to war and started to spend the American Republic into its final demise, the isolationist, fiscally responsible wing of the Conservative party was MIA. [Buckley and Friedman were still alive when the war started, and they said it was stupid. But nobody listened because the Conservative wing of the party had been effectively replaced by Talk Radio lemmings, many of whom post here with a kind of sad bravado] Some of you self-professed conservatives made small complaints about Bush, but you basically rolled over for the neocons, who are a cancerous liberal wing of the New Right. [Chaney is the Left of Obama on gay marriage. Bush is the Left of Obama on illegal immigration. Karl Rove is more anti-religious than Richard Dawkins. You folks don't get it: your current party leaders care not for "Borders, Language, Culture". They took your party over, and they are still in control, and you continue to vote for them because you don't understand conservative principles]

Which is to say: there is no Conservative Party anymore.

You good folks have been punk'd, as they say.

[Please read Daniel Bell's "Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism". Bell is one of your last great Conservative thinkers. Once you understand the contradiction between globalization and cultural autonomy, you will understand what happened to your great movement starting in 1980. Conservatism in America has been dead a long, long, long time. So has Liberalism. You live in a one party oligarchy which serves the interests of the stateless transnationals who fund your elections and own your media]

Congratulations. Like any other thinking person you have discovered that W was not a Conservative. All of the policies that the Big 0 says ruined the country were free spending, big government policies.

So to combat the problems of free spending and big government, the Big 0 is implementing even freer spending along with even bigger government.

Really quite brilliant. Like giving a cocaine junky meth to help him recover.

 

[code1211]

Contradiction

Oppose Abortion but support the Death Penalty

Oppose Big Government getting involved in your personal choices but oppose Gay Marriage

My favorite contradiction is the ardent Tenth Amendment-ers who're all for across-state lines health insurance purchasing and national tort reform, both of which are assertions of federal dominance over state law.

Not to mention if you try to establish gun control rules at the state or local level

Federal Law takes precedence over state law. Second Amendment stand in the fgace of local or state law. Is there an amendment regarding Health insurance?

 

[Charles_Main]

I didn't say it's unconstitutional. It is, however, a federal override of state laws to achieve a policy outcome you prefer. And that seems strangely out of character.

Not at all. I am a constitutional originalist. I support states rights up to the point where the Constitution grants the Fed the power to supplant them. I feel this is a case where the Fed has the authority and should use it.

As for the Tort Reform thing. That is one of the things I like about the current Bill. The problem is it is one of few.

Maybe there would be a way for the Fed to encourage State tort Reform with out forcing it. I just think myself anyways, that Some kind of Tort Reform needs to happen.

Not just for Malpractice Either, I have always thought that there is just something wrong with Lawyers making a HUGE amount of money off cases because they get a %. Remember the Tobacco Case. Those Lawyers became Billionaires over it. Even as a conservative I find that a tad over the top. It is also wrong that a person can be sued, win the case, but be financially ruined. I am a strong supporter of Legislation to make the Loser pay when they bring a case and lose after the defendant incurred Millions in Legal Fees.

 

[code1211]

Oppose Big Government getting involved in your personal choices but oppose Gay Marriage

Opposing or being pro "gay marriage" is a personal choice. Forcing all of society to recognize and condone gay marriage is an example of big government getting involved in your personal choices.

You, yourself do not have to recognize anyones marriage

The government does

As long as there are laws that create advantages or disadvantages for legal unions, disallowing legally recognized gay unions with all of the same advantages as hetero unions is discrimination.

As long as the word marriage is used in the discussion, it will be a flame issue. Marriage being to many a religious term.

Legally, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is okay, but extending all of the same legal rights to members of Gay unions under a different name should do the trick.

Of course, this is a comprimise. Hardly possible in the world of scorched Earth negotiation.

 

[code1211]

Few of us, regardless of how we bill ourselves, is ENTIRELY consistent in what we want.

What most of us really want is GOOD GOVERNMENT.

We're mostly like Goldilocks of the three bears fame, really.

We want the porriage to be neither too hot, nor too cold, the bed either too hard nor too soft.

Where we end up debating is mostly how to get that GOOD GOVERNMENT, and mostly we debate what a GOOD GOVERNMENT is supposed to be doing, too.

When we characterize the opposite partisan team we generally do so by

1. ascribing something ridiculous to the other side
2. Fault them for wanting what they do NOT want
3. Explain how what we want is sensible, and that we want these sensible things because (the sotto voce message) we are sane and the other side is not.

We see this bullshit tecnique happening every day on this board.

Typically the partisan starts out saying either

The liberals all say (believe, want) ________________________________...

or \

The conservatives all say (believe want) ________________________________...

And then these partisans go on to fault people for things they neither said, want or believe.

This is mostly what passes for serious political discussion in place like this, folks.

I'm guessing you read The Londoners post above.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservative Contradiction

We oppose abortion but we also oppose sex education, birth control and programs that help unwed mothers

 

[Yukon.]

Rightwing,

What about evolution ?

 

[rightwinger]

Rightwing,

What about evolution ?

Evolution is not a contradiction because it involves science. Science is a left wing conspiracy so liberals can act elite. Evolution, smoking causing cancer, global warming are all examples of liberals using science to make conservatives look dumb

 

[DiamondDave]

Conservative Contradiction

We oppose abortion but we also oppose sex education, birth control and programs that help unwed mothers

Ahh.. the number of incorrect generalizations you have in a feeble attempt to skew perception is simply amazing

Oppose abortion while supporting the death penalty of our most heinous murderers is not a contradiction... protecting innocent life while eliminating a worthless vile and evil convicted murderer are 2 completely different things...

Conservatives do not oppose sex education.... we oppose the government thinking it is in place to forcibly provide it and taking over my parental responsibility to do it or to CHOOSE to let the educational system do it, if it meets our standards

Conservatives are not against birth control... but we are indeed against the governmental system thinking it has the right to readily hand it to our children when our children are our responsibility

Conservatives are not against programs to help unwed mothers... in fact we whole heartedly support many charitable organizations that deal with such things... what most conservatives are against are government entitlement programs that suck off the taxpayer tit in some misguides view that government exists to take your personal responsibilities away from you by just forking monies over that are paid into the tax system