What is a conservative, anyway?

[RetiredGySgt]

I believe those things, too.

As I often attempt to make clear, the difference between real liberals and real conservatives is generally in how we come down on keeping government in check while still having a viable society.

No real liberal I know wants a totalitarian government, and no conservative I know wants one either.

And since every government tends to drift toward more and more control, the problem is always which laws and which policies can prevent intrustion of our rights as individuals while still protecting our freedom from the governments and from those with enormous power.

We're never get it exactly right because even if we did, conditions would change such that we'd need to rethink our solutions.

You want the Government to seize and run the ENTIRE healthcare industry. Do not pretend we have anything in common. You support shredding the Constitution cause you want the Government to take care of everything.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, the opposite is true, since conservatives believe that, with freedom comes personal responsibility. Liberals believe that freedom means freedom from responsibility.

I see. That is why Haliburton, after getting many, many billions in no bid contracts from the American taxpayer, moves to Dubai. All you guys are good for is repition of meaningless talking points. The last eight years have shown the value of your type of thinking. The nation voted for change, and change we will have.

 

[Old Rocks]

'real liberals' ARE Conservatives...

Those that 'call' themselves 'liberals' (such as yourself) are leftists... And they are leftists because they lack the cognitive acuity to be anything else. The notion that liberals do not 'want' a totalitarian gov't is irrelevant, they don't want a bleeding asshole either, yet they are prone to promote activity (which is a policy of sorts) which lends to the likelihood of a bleeding asshole... Same with the HIV, war poverty and every other notion which trickles down from their resin soaked grey matter; their behavior nearly always promotes the exact opposite of that which they SAY they stand for... My problem with leftists isn't that they exist, it is that they vote; the simple fact is the idealogical left exists for no other reason than to give the stupid a political voice and sadly we've hit rock bottom and the inmates are now running the asylum... And nothing good can come from that.

Oh bullshit. You fellows had eight years to prove your point. You have nothing but miserable failure on all fronts to show for your eight years. Flap your yap all you please, those are the facts, fellow.

 

[Old Rocks]

You want the Government to seize and run the ENTIRE healthcare industry. Do not pretend we have anything in common. You support shredding the Constitution cause you want the Government to take care of everything.

Would you care to point out what provisions of the Constitution are shredded if we adopt a health care system like that of Canada? As opposed, say, to the powers given the Executive in the Patriot Act?

 

[Modbert]

Would you care to point out what provisions of the Constitution are shredded if we adopt a health care system like that of Canada? As opposed, say, to the powers given the Executive in the Patriot Act?

Patriot Act:

Biggest lesson to kids to always read before you sign your name/vote for something.

 

[Old Rocks]

Patriot Act:

Biggest lesson to kids to always read before you sign your name/vote for something.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

A US Conservative is an American; a classic 'liberal'; one that pursues and defends individual liberty and the inalienable God-given human rights inherent in liberty, for themselves and their neighbors from the tyranny of leftism. A Conservative seeks to defend the principles on which the United States is founded; those set forth in the founding document of the United States and on which the US Constitution rest; US Conservatism is the absolute opposite of the freedom killing ideological left which seeks through inherent ignorance, the collective freedom from work and want; and it does so on the backs of ACTUAL Americans; OKA: Conservatives.

Oh bullshit. You fellows had eight years to prove your point. You have nothing but miserable failure on all fronts to show for your eight years. Flap your yap all you please, those are the facts, fellow.

Conservatives had eight years? ROFLMNAO... Let me ask you this Ivan... "What color is the sky in your world?"

Conservatism cannot fail... as Conservatism is valid principle; it stands directly upon the bedrock of the natural order; Humanity only fails when it strays from Conservatism and it should be noted that where GW Bush has failed is precisely where he strayed from conservatism: Domestic Social Entitlments and adding new spending without cutting other items...

For instance... GW Bush signed the largest increase in entitlement spending since LBJ and the Great Society farce... social spending is unsustainable, logically invalid and founded upon reasoning which is not sound; it serves to usurp the natural rights of the individual to serve an invalid right of the collective... thus it violates the principles on which the US Constitution rests and is thus, 'not Conservative.'

Also, where the US was forced to increase spending in the war on Islamic Terrorism throughout the world in the fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Africa and Asia, Conservatism would have cut spending dollar for dollar elsewhere in the budget; but leftist policy which was established in law to protect unconstitutional social spending prevents such cuts; thus where the US is forced to defend itself, LEFTIST... ANTI-CONSERVATIVE POLICY requires that the US cannot cut spending to offset that which is necessary for national security; thus the budget is routinely busted as a funtion of left-think, which, as is always the case, dooms what ever culture is sufficiently foolish to lend it credence.

Thus the policy which you lament IS that which for which you advocate, you pathetic imbecile...

 

[Old Rocks]

Conservatives had eight years? ROFLMNAO... Let me ask you this Ivan... "What color is the sky in your world?"

Conservatism cannot fail... as Conservatism is valid principle; it stands directly upon the bedrock of the natural order; Humanity only fails when it strays from Conservatism and it should be noted that where GW Bush has failed is precisely where he strayed from conservatism: Domestic Social Entitlments and adding new spending without cutting other items...

For instance... GW Bush signed the largest increase in entitlement spending since LBJ and the Great Society farce... social spending is unsustainable, logically invalid and founded upon reasoning which is not sound; it serves to usurp the natural rights of the individual to serve an invalid right of the collective... thus it violates the principles on which the US Constitution rests and is thus, 'not Conservative.'

Also, where the US was forced to increase spending in the war on Islamic Terrorism throughout the world in the fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Africa and Asia, Conservatism would have cut spending dollar for dollar elsewhere in the budget; but leftist policy which was established in law to protect unconstitutional social spending prevents such cuts; thus where the US is forced to defend itself, LEFTIST... ANTI-CONSERVATIVE POLICY requires that the US cannot cut spending to offset that which is necessary for national security; thus the budget is routinely busted as a funtion of left-think, which, as is always the case, dooms what ever culture is sufficiently foolish to lend it credence.

Thus the policy which you lament IS that which for which you advocate, you pathetic imbecile...

Since we supposedly are at war, don't you think that we should adopt the policy concerning taxation that we did during WW2? Or is it a good conservative principle that the sons and daughters of the working poor and middle class can sacrifice their lives and limbs, but God forbid the very wealthy should have to sacrifice part of the profit.

And it was you people that voted for Bush both times. We Liberals reconized the imbecile for what he is. But now that the last eight years have been a total FUBAR your are abandoning Bush. Sorry, he is your boy, and his policies were the ones that you backed. You had the Senate, the House, and the Exectutive for six of those eight years. Explain why the last eight years have been such a total failure. Liberals were not in power, and just along for the ride.

But now the shoe is on the other foot. And what has you scared and shaking is the prospect of Obama and this Congress actually being successful in spite of your boy's best efforts at destroying this nation.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Since we supposedly are at war, don't you think that we should adopt the policy concerning taxation that we did during WW2?

ABSOLUTELY! Why don't you SPECIFIY what the tax code was during WW 2 witless... You have 24 hours.

Or is it a good conservative principle that the sons and daughters of the working poor and middle class can sacrifice their lives and limbs, but God forbid the very wealthy should have to sacrifice part of the profit.

Well I'm fairly well off and I have two sons serving in the Marine Corps... My best friend owns a Hawker 700 and his son is also serving in the Corps; One of the sponsors of my car is an officer of a six billion dollar Corporation and his son is serving in the Navy Seals... So this fantasy that only the poor serve is absolute nonsense. My parents were far more affluent than I am and I entered the Marine Corps out of High School... despite beng accepted to USC... Your myth is a lie sis.

And it was you people that voted for Bush both times.

I've votedfor GW Bush FOUR TIMES... And I'd vote for him TOMORROW if the choice was GW Bush or a Marxist Muslim...

We Liberals reconized the imbecile for what he is.

Did ya? That's hilarious... as GW Bush is a fascist; meaning HE'S ONE OF YOU! The only difference being that GW Bush loves America... SO he's a National Socialist, where you and the girls are more of the 'international' variety... and while the Nationl Socialist is of almost NO Value to a viable nation... they are SOLID GOLD compared to you people.

But now that the last eight years have been a total FUBAR your are abandoning Bush.

ROFLMNAO... ya know Sis you keep saying that... but every failure of the Bush administration is one wherein he adopted the socialist position.

So towards helping you expose yourself s a breying fool... I hereby challenge you to post for the record the "FAILURES of th last 8 years..." List each failure of the Bush administration...

Sorry, he is your boy, and his policies were the ones that you backed.

HOLD THE PHONE! No sir... The Bush policies I supported are the one's that are in sync with the founding principles... The defense of the US, the across the board lowering of taxation and regulation... and the appointing of Americans to the SCOTUS... I and the other Americans most decidely did NOT support the increase in entitlement spending... the increase in spending without dollar for dollar cuts in other federal spending... and disasters such as amnesty for illegal aliens. SO that bullshit is summarily tossed. When GW makes sound principled decisions... I'm with him; when he goes left he does so without me or any other American.

You had the Senate, the House, and the Exectutive for six of those eight years.

Patently false... there has not been a conservative majority in the US in my life time. With the closest being the 94 election where the Congress came in with a weak conservative majority and from that we realized the closest thing to a balanced budget since LBJ and the Great Society farce.

You want to project "Republican" as being analogous to 'US' and that is nonsense... for starters the GOP is LOADED with leftists and beyond that the GOP had sliverous majorities and given the left tendencies of those fruits, it has no bearing and in no way reflects upon anything resembling "US"... That those of your intellectual value can still vote should tell you that "WE" never had a majority; of course those of your intellectual value don't even know what that means... so never mind.

Explain why the last eight years have been such a total failure. Liberals were not in power, and just along for the ride.

Sure... I'll be happy to as soon as you define failure and apply that definition to the list to whcih you were challenged to post, in the above paragraph...

But now the shoe is on the other foot. And what has you scared and shaking is the prospect of Obama and this Congress actually being successful in spite of your boy's best efforts at destroying this nation.

Sis Hussein is a Marxist... thus the potential for success is -0-... there is absolutely NO CHANCE for success, where success is defined by the creation of wealth and the defense of individual liberty. So there is no potential to fear it. If I fear anything, it is that the life which I have managed to build is at risk and that I and those close to me will have to take the lives of you idiots in defense of our rights... that we will have to see your heads laid open from the wounds we've imposed upon you and that we will realize loss due to your lack of sufficient intellectual means to recognize the danger to which you idiots have subjected us all. But fear will not prevent action... and if that's what you imbeciles are banking upon... you've once again allowed your limitations to screw yourself.

 

[AllieBaba]

My bro-in-law came from an incredibly wealthy family and left West Point in order to serve in Viet Nam. He didn't want to wait until graduation.

My daughter-in-law is not poor, she comes from a well-off family and has wanted to go into the military since she was a little girl.

I get so sick of the portrayal of all our military personnel as stupid, poor dopes who just didn't have anything better to do and didn't know any better.

It's just as annoying as the portrayal of all those who live outside NYC or LA or Chicago as "redneck Bible-thumpers".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Patriot Act:

Biggest lesson to kids to always read before you sign your name/vote for something.

Be so kind as to actually list any rights violated anyone denied Constitutional protections or a day in court under the Patriot act. And I do not mean terrorists captured in foreign countries bearing arms against this country.

 

[Old Rocks]

My bro-in-law came from an incredibly wealthy family and left West Point in order to serve in Viet Nam. He didn't want to wait until graduation.

My daughter-in-law is not poor, she comes from a well-off family and has wanted to go into the military since she was a little girl.

I get so sick of the portrayal of all our military personnel as stupid, poor dopes who just didn't have anything better to do and didn't know any better.

It's just as annoying as the portrayal of all those who live outside NYC or LA or Chicago as "redneck Bible-thumpers".

Nobody has portrayed those who volunteer for the military as stupid, or ill informed. After all, I volunteered. But I was from a poor family.

 

[Old Rocks]

Federal judge rules 2 Patriot Act provisions unconstitutionalStory Highlights
Judge: Search warrants issued without showing probable cause

Attorney seeks ruling after being wrongly linked to '04 Madrid train bombing

His suit says secret searches of house, office violated Fourth Amendment rights

As part of suit settlement, he retained right to challenge parts of Patriot Act

Next Article in U.S. »




(CNN) -- A federal court on Wednesday struck down two provisions of the Patriot Act dealing with searches and intelligence gathering, saying they violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures with regard to criminal prosecutions.

"It is critical that we, as a democratic nation, pay close attention to traditional Fourth Amendment principles," wrote Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in her 44-page decision. "The Fourth Amendment has served this nation well for 220 years, through many other perils."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, set up to review wiretap applications in intelligence cases under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, "holds that the Constitution need not control the conduct of criminal surveillance in the United States," Aiken wrote.

"In place of the Fourth Amendment, the people are expected to defer to the executive branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate."

The government "is asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. The court declines to do so," Aiken said.

The Justice Department was reviewing the decision, said spokesman Dean Boyd.

The ruling was a response to a lawsuit filed against the federal government by Brandon Mayfield, a Portland, Oregon, attorney who was wrongly arrested for alleged involvement in the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Don't Miss
PDF: The judge's opinion and order
PDF: The civil rights violation complaint
Spy chief wants eavesdropping law changed
The federal government later apologized to Mayfield and settled part of Mayfield's lawsuit for $2 million. But Mayfield was permitted to keep pursuing the portions of his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act.
Federal judge rules 2 Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional - CNN.com

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Federal judge rules 2 Patriot Act provisions unconstitutionalStory Highlights
Judge: Search warrants issued without showing probable cause

Attorney seeks ruling after being wrongly linked to '04 Madrid train bombing

His suit says secret searches of house, office violated Fourth Amendment rights

As part of suit settlement, he retained right to challenge parts of Patriot Act

Next Article in U.S. »




(CNN) -- A federal court on Wednesday struck down two provisions of the Patriot Act dealing with searches and intelligence gathering, saying they violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures with regard to criminal prosecutions.

"It is critical that we, as a democratic nation, pay close attention to traditional Fourth Amendment principles," wrote Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in her 44-page decision. "The Fourth Amendment has served this nation well for 220 years, through many other perils."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, set up to review wiretap applications in intelligence cases under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, "holds that the Constitution need not control the conduct of criminal surveillance in the United States," Aiken wrote.

"In place of the Fourth Amendment, the people are expected to defer to the executive branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate."

The government "is asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. The court declines to do so," Aiken said.

The Justice Department was reviewing the decision, said spokesman Dean Boyd.

The ruling was a response to a lawsuit filed against the federal government by Brandon Mayfield, a Portland, Oregon, attorney who was wrongly arrested for alleged involvement in the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Don't Miss
PDF: The judge's opinion and order
PDF: The civil rights violation complaint
Spy chief wants eavesdropping law changed
The federal government later apologized to Mayfield and settled part of Mayfield's lawsuit for $2 million. But Mayfield was permitted to keep pursuing the portions of his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act.
Federal judge rules 2 Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional - CNN.com

In other words his rights were NOT violated, and he had his day in court, Hey but thanks for trying. And look the Courts acted as required on NEW Laws. Maybe you can actually find someone who had their rights violated next time?

 

[Modbert]

Be so kind as to actually list any rights violated anyone denied Constitutional protections or a day in court under the Patriot act. And I do not mean terrorists captured in foreign countries bearing arms against this country.

All I stated was that little to no senator read the act, which is true.

And considering how fast it was created and passed through, this act creation began well before 9/11.

But since you asked:

Roving Wiretaps as defined in section 206. Which bypasses the 4th amendment.

Another group, the Humanitarian Law Project, also objected to the provision prohibiting "expert advise and assistance" to terrorists and filed a suit against the U.S. government to have it declared unconstitutional. They succeeded, and a Federal Court found that the law was vague enough to cause a reasonable person to guess whether they were breaking the law or not. Thus they found it violated the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, and struck it down.

They allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order.

In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions.

The ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the Patriot Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional.

Section 215 allows the FBI to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Amongst the "tangible things" that could be targeted, it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".

Another controversial aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act is the immigration provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of any alien whom the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act

Effect on the privacy of British Columbian citizens. British Columbia’s privacy commissioner raises concerns that the USA PATRIOT Act will allow the United States government to access Canadians' private information, such as personal medical records, that are outsourced to American companies. Although the government of British Columbia has taken measures to prevent United States authorities from obtaining information, the widespread powers of the USA PATRIOT Act could overcome legislation that is passed in Canada

"They who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Zoomie1980]

Since we supposedly are at war, don't you think that we should adopt the policy concerning taxation that we did during WW2? Or is it a good conservative principle that the sons and daughters of the working poor and middle class can sacrifice their lives and limbs, but God forbid the very wealthy should have to sacrifice part of the profit.

And it was you people that voted for Bush both times. We Liberals reconized the imbecile for what he is. But now that the last eight years have been a total FUBAR your are abandoning Bush. Sorry, he is your boy, and his policies were the ones that you backed. You had the Senate, the House, and the Exectutive for six of those eight years. Explain why the last eight years have been such a total failure. Liberals were not in power, and just along for the ride.

But now the shoe is on the other foot. And what has you scared and shaking is the prospect of Obama and this Congress actually being successful in spite of your boy's best efforts at destroying this nation.

I have over a quarter million a year in income and I have three sons in the military, two in Afghanistan on the front lines. I served in the US Air Force for six years.

It is a FALACY that today's military is primarily from the lower middle class or the poor. In fact it is almost exactly OPPOSITE.

 

[garyd]

Are you kidding me Teddy Kennedys senate wrote most of it, much as they also got to write much of the ill considered no child left behind act, since it was the only way Bush could get anything by that collection of myopic stooges that are currently the top Democrats in the US senate.

 

[Modbert]

Are you kidding me Teddy Kennedys senate wrote most of it, much as they also got to write much of the ill considered no child left behind act, since it was the only way Bush could get anything by that collection of myopic stooges that are currently the top Democrats in the US senate.

Again, get off your witch hunt of Ted Kennedy and listen good:

Bush undercut the funding of NCLB big time. The ideals of NCLB were good but once underfunded and implemented it was horrible.

I would know, I've gone through 8 years of the Bush Administration for my education and about to graduate in June.

 

[garyd]

Bush hasn't the power to cut spending. That lies in the hands of the US congress.

 

[Modbert]

Bush hasn't the power to cut spending. That lies in the hands of the US congress.

From Wikipedia:

Several provisions of NCLB, such as a push for quality teachers and more professional development, place additional demands on local districts and state education agencies. Some of these extra expenses are not fully reimbursed by NCLB monies.

Various early supporters of NCLB criticize its implementation, claiming it is not adequately funded by either the federal government or the states. Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor, has stated: "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not."[47] Susan B. Neuman, U.S. Department of Education's former assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education, commented about her worries of NCLB in a meeting of the International Reading Association.[48]

" In [the most disadvantaged schools] in America, even the most earnest teacher has often given up because they lack every available resource that could possibly make a difference. . . . When we say all children can achieve and then not give them the additional resources … we are creating a fantasy."

Organizations have particularly criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to fully fund the act. Noting that appropriations bills always originate in the House of Representatives, it is true that neither the Senate nor the White House has even requested federal funding up to the authorized levels for several of the act’s main provisions. For example, President Bush requested only $13.3 of a possible $22.75 billion in 2006.[49] President Bush's 2008 budget allots $61 billion for the Education Department, cutting funding by $1.3 billion from last year. 44 out of 50 states would receive reductions in federal funding if the budget passes asis.[50] Specifically, funding for the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT) has continued to drop while the demand for technology in schools has increased (Technology and Learning, 2006).

Republicans in Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises. Some opponents argue that these funding shortfalls mean that schools faced with the system of escalating penalties for failing to meet testing targets are denied the resources necessary to remedy problems detected by testing.

Federal funding is claimed to be particularly important because declining tax revenues at the state level have sometimes led governors and legislatures to make deep cuts in state education budgets

Please note in my original post how I specifically said FUNDING.