Conservatism: Correcting the Ignorant

[Redfish]

"...simply make any crime committed by a member of one race against a member of another race a hate-crime."




Why would anyone who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool, inveterate 'racist' oppose this idea?

Clearly, the offense involves two races....
...no denying that.

Don't you want to prevent racist attacks???

You do, don't you?
Or....


...you could be a closet racist.



Heck....don't you want to hold both races equally culpable?
Maybe you are a racist....

why is it worse if someone kills you because he doesn't like your skin color than if he kills you to steal your money? either way you are dead and he is a murderer.

why does it matter what was in his mind when he killed you?

Do you really believe that you can legislate thought?

Are you suggesting that I support what Liberals call 'hate crimes'?

On the contrary.

In fact, the post which you've quoted suggests the more reasonable alternative to same.


I provided the idea so that our friend Sloth can explain his resistence to the plan.

sorry I misread your post. Yes, rather than hate crimes we should double the penalty when the crime is committed by one race on another race.

Problem is that we need to define what is a race-------hispanic ? asian ? jewish ? half breed ?

how about using the same system for political views?

the whole "hate crime" idea is just liberal lunacy and a poorly veiled attempt at thought control

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

On several occasions my 'Anonymous Muse' has posted such ignorant blather that 'it' has inspired me to OP corrections and remediations.

They are so inane that, for 'it's' own good I have redacted the name of this individual

Here's an example:
"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"




And, so...a primer on conservatism:


1. This begins with the idea that the principles of conservatism hold the key to both unlimited opportunity for individual Americans, and the realization of our country’s boundless potential.

2. The Founders set out to create a new system of government, one unlike any the world had yet seen. It relies on individual liberty, and imposes positive limitations on government written into the Constitution.

3. But a definition of conservatism might better be understood by considering the opposite ideology, whether called liberal or progressive or leftism, it centers on the belief that our nation’s foundational principles no longer apply, and that a vast expansion of government, unrestricted in power, is a natural evolution. This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous.

a. Said expansion necessitates a reduction in the rights of individuals.

b. The unspoken corollary of said expansion of government is the degree of taxation, which deprives individuals of their right to make decisions for themselves. This ends the creativity, innovation, and individual determination which once propelled our nation to greatness.

c. David Mamet wrote: In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!






4. Liberalis/progressivism/Leftism allows for- and indeed facilitates- government intrusion into homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship. The limited federal government envisioned by Madison now assumes the roles of mass employer, public contractor, commercial bank, financial investor, farmer, industrialist, retirement adviser, healthcare provider, and parent- none of which are enumerated in the Constitution.

5. Conservatism proclaims that the only right and proper function of our government is to secure, promote, and protect the individual liberties of the citizen.


6. Any philosophy which repudiates the primacy of the individual in favor of the tyranny of the collective will deny our nation true progress.

7. Too many government actions are seemingly based on the premise that each American cannot be trusted to exercise rights on his or her own.

8. A government guided by the sole purpose of protecting individual freedoms is both morally superior to other forms of government, and also steward over a more prosperous, diverse and happy society than can be achieved under a form of government guided by any other principle.





9. There must be a restoration of the fundamental faith in man that led our founders to hold up the idea of individual liberty with such reverence.

10. Whether or not these principles, and such a government, can be reinstituted in the face of the Left’s control of media and the education system, as well as the bribery of give-aways and take-aways, is not the question.

The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

Largely from “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler & John Amble

In the first place, I'd disagree with your definition of liberalism/progressivism.

In the second, I'd point out that modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties. In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally.

1. '"modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties.'
I recognize this as the Liberal's pejorative description of conservatism, based on your hatred of capitalism.

a. As a result of an inordinate obsession with material equality, rather than equality before the law, the view of our (conservative) Founders, Liberals despise free market capitalism because it produces winners and loser.

b. Try to recognize that people not all the same; nor will results be.



2. "In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally."
Now, you've become irrational.

But it certainly burnished your Liberal credentials and validates the efficacy of government schooling.

Some are able to break free of the indoctrination....but you?

Someone claimed you are a Coultergeist wannabe. On the stupidest day of her life, perhaps a morning after she took on the Heritage Foundation debating team, Ms Coulter never contemplated the volume of ignorance and sheer lost-girlness apparent in your nonsense above.

XXXXXXX

Edited.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where PoliChic is wrong, wrong, wrong: Bull Connor was NOT voted out of office. Conservatives embrace of Corporatism goes to their defense world wide of Corporate rights, which hides behind a distorted free market mantra.

Democrats weren't the slave holders and segregationist racist bigots, Southern White Conservative Christians in the Republican Democratic, later in the Democratic party and now in the Republican party were. Some say the racist bigots as a sect in the current GOP are alive and doing well.

I said he was voted out.....

....you claimed I was wrong...


" Although suffering a crippling stroke in 1966 which left him wheelchair-bound for the rest of his life, Connor ran for reelection to the PSC in 1968, winning handily, but lost by a large margin in 1972, in part due to the growing number of black Alabama registered voters."
Colored Reflections - The Sixties, Eugene "Bull" Connor



Where is the apology?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the first place, I'd disagree with your definition of liberalism/progressivism.

In the second, I'd point out that modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties. In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally.

1. '"modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties.'
I recognize this as the Liberal's pejorative description of conservatism, based on your hatred of capitalism.

a. As a result of an inordinate obsession with material equality, rather than equality before the law, the view of our (conservative) Founders, Liberals despise free market capitalism because it produces winners and loser.

b. Try to recognize that people not all the same; nor will results be.



2. "In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally."
Now, you've become irrational.

But it certainly burnished your Liberal credentials and validates the efficacy of government schooling.

Some are able to break free of the indoctrination....but you?
XXXXXXX

Someone claimed you are a Coultergeist wannabe. On the stupidest day of her life, perhaps a morning after she took on the Heritage Foundation debating team, Ms Coulter never contemplated the volume of ignorance and sheer lost-girlness apparent in your nonsense above.

Go back under the rock, worm.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

So, uh, did The Founders you claim to understand support bloodless entities having the rights of natural born citizens, Ms Chicoultergeist?

Either answer the question yes or no, or admit by your silence or rhetorical diversions that you are just another nutball clown bloviating horseshit all over the internet.

And for all readers here, this idiot turned me in for insulting her and got me some kind of infraction. Whoever gave it didn't explain what the offense was and the insult language wasn't in the same world as a lot of invective here, so both the perpetual "victim" / fake conservative spokesbimbo and the administrator are a little less than clear and zero help identifying the infraction. Dealing with people as stupid and lame and pimpy as wannabe Coulterpersons who define themselves as victims, one would at least want to know the specific language the lamo objects to.

 

[Dante]

Democrat “Bull” Connor was voted out of office by the people of Alabama.

The people of Alabama elected Bull Connor to The Alabama Public Service Commission after the powers that be in the City of Birmingham changed the city charter.

Birmingham has a strong-mayor variant mayor-council form of government, led by a mayor and a nine-member city council. The current system replaced the previous city commission government in 1962 (primarily as a way to remove Commissioner of Public Safety Eugene "Bull" Connor from power)

The powers that be had to change the city charter in order to defeat Bull Connor. Bull Connor was never defeated in an election by the people of Alabama as PoliChic claims. Bull was not even defeated in an election for office in Birmingham

 

[Dante]

Where PoliChic is wrong, wrong, wrong: Bull Connor was NOT voted out of office. Conservatives embrace of Corporatism goes to their defense world wide of Corporate rights, which hides behind a distorted free market mantra.

Democrats weren't the slave holders and segregationist racist bigots, Southern White Conservative Christians in the Republican Democratic, later in the Democratic party and now in the Republican party were. Some say the racist bigots as a sect in the current GOP are alive and doing well.

I said he was voted out.....

....you claimed I was wrong...


" Although suffering a crippling stroke in 1966 which left him wheelchair-bound for the rest of his life, Connor ran for reelection to the PSC in 1968, winning handily, but lost by a large margin in 1972, in part due to the growing number of black Alabama registered voters."
Colored Reflections - The Sixties, Eugene "Bull" Connor



Where is the apology?

you were wrong then and you are wrong now: see last post

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. But a definition of conservatism might better be understood by considering the opposite ideology, whether called liberal or progressive or leftism, it centers on the belief that our nation’s foundational principles no longer apply, and that a vast expansion of government, unrestricted in power, is a natural evolution. This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous.

Nonsense.

The judicial record indicates that liberals, not conservatives, have the more accurate understanding of the principles enshrined in the Constitution, where conservatives seek to expand the size and power of government by undermining citizens’ privacy rights, by denying the due process rights of immigrants, and by denying same-sex couples’ equal protection rights with regard to access to marriage law.

DOMA, for example, is a testament to conservative authoritarianism,
where the right seeks to deny marriage equality in the states by using the power of government to single out a particular class of persons and subject them to discriminatory measures.

4. Liberalism/progressivism/Leftism allows for- and indeed facilitates- government intrusion into homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship. The limited federal government envisioned by Madison now assumes the roles of mass employer, public contractor, commercial bank, financial investor, farmer, industrialist, retirement adviser, healthcare provider, and parent- none of which are enumerated in the Constitution.

And here the OP exhibits her ignorance.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied. See: McCullogh v. Maryland (1819). ‘But that’s not in the Constitution’ is a naïve and failed argument:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."

McCulloch v. Maryland | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

Indeed.

And, sadly, it is conservatives, for the most part, who stand in defiance of the Constitution, its case law, and the Framers’ principles it protects.

My quote:
"Liberalism/progressivism/Leftism allows for- and indeed facilitates- government intrusion into homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship. The limited federal government envisioned by Madison now assumes the roles of mass employer, public contractor, commercial bank, financial investor, farmer, industrialist, retirement adviser, healthcare provider, and parent- none of which are enumerated in the Constitution



Your quote:

"....Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution...."


1. The clear implication is that you believe that your quote nullifies mine....and that the Constituition in not meant to provide limitations on the federal government.....in any shape, manner, or means.


If there is an America with the US Constitution as the law of the land, your position is counter to the spirit and meaning of the document.

As a prototypical Liberal, you have no respect for the Constitution, and see your god, government, as omnipotent.


2. Taking one example, taxation- since that is the basis for the case you quote, Article I, section 8, clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;….

a. Hamilton’s view was that this clause gave Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, whatsoever they decide that might be.

b. William Drayton, in 1828, came down on the side of Madison, Jefferson and others, pointing out that if Hamilton was correct, what point would there have been to enumerate Congresses’ other powers? If Congress wished to do anything it was not authorized to do, it could accomplish it via taxing and spending. He said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?"
'Charity Not a Proper Function of the American Government' by Walter E. Williams


3. You say, 'And here the OP exhibits her ignorance."

Actually, here is your having absorbed the view that what judges say of the Constitution is what the Constitution actually means....even if the case law runs counter to the actual languange.


a. Your ilk has tried, and, all too often succeeded, in pretending that the Constitution means what you with it to mean.

It does not.

There is only one way to alter the Constitution...and it is not by judges decisions.
The amendment process.




Here is youir rememial:


In his farewell address of our first President, George Washington, in reference to our Constitution, warned, "Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." But, change there has been.



Until 1937, the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
The General Welfare Clause

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where PoliChic is wrong, wrong, wrong: Bull Connor was NOT voted out of office. Conservatives embrace of Corporatism goes to their defense world wide of Corporate rights, which hides behind a distorted free market mantra.

Democrats weren't the slave holders and segregationist racist bigots, Southern White Conservative Christians in the Republican Democratic, later in the Democratic party and now in the Republican party were. Some say the racist bigots as a sect in the current GOP are alive and doing well.

I said he was voted out.....

....you claimed I was wrong...


" Although suffering a crippling stroke in 1966 which left him wheelchair-bound for the rest of his life, Connor ran for reelection to the PSC in 1968, winning handily, but lost by a large margin in 1972, in part due to the growing number of black Alabama registered voters."
Colored Reflections - The Sixties, Eugene "Bull" Connor



Where is the apology?

you were wrong then and you are wrong now: see last post

"...he was defeated by State Senator Kenneth Hammond in the Democratic Primary."
The Tuscaloosa News - Google News Archive Search


Where is the apology?

 

[Dante]

I said he was voted out.....

....you claimed I was wrong...


" Although suffering a crippling stroke in 1966 which left him wheelchair-bound for the rest of his life, Connor ran for reelection to the PSC in 1968, winning handily, but lost by a large margin in 1972, in part due to the growing number of black Alabama registered voters."
Colored Reflections - The Sixties, Eugene "Bull" Connor



Where is the apology?

you were wrong then and you are wrong now: see last post

"...he was defeated by State Senator Kenneth Hammond in the Democratic Primary."
The Tuscaloosa News - Google News Archive Search


Where is the apology?

In 1973. Bull Connor was not denied reelection by the people of Alabama or the people of Birmingham during the 1960s as you claimed. and .. the 1973 election was statewide and not city the Birmingham

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, uh, did The Founders you claim to understand support bloodless entities having the rights of natural born citizens, Ms Chicoultergeist?

Either answer the question yes or no, or admit by your silence or rhetorical diversions that you are just another nutball clown bloviating horseshit all over the internet.

And for all readers here, this idiot turned me in for insulting her and got me some kind of infraction. Whoever gave it didn't explain what the offense was and the insult language wasn't in the same world as a lot of invective here, so both the perpetual "victim" / fake conservative spokesbimbo and the administrator are a little less than clear and zero help identifying the infraction. Dealing with people as stupid and lame and pimpy as wannabe Coulterpersons who define themselves as victims, one would at least want to know the specific language the lamo objects to.

"And for all readers here, this idiot turned me in for insulting her and got me some kind of infraction."

This is a total and complete lie.

I challenge you to support that claim.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

So, uh, did The Founders you claim to understand support bloodless entities having the rights of natural born citizens, Ms Chicoultergeist?

Either answer the question yes or no, or admit by your silence or rhetorical diversions that you are just another nutball clown bloviating horseshit all over the internet.

And for all readers here, this idiot turned me in for insulting her and got me some kind of infraction. Whoever gave it didn't explain what the offense was and the insult language wasn't in the same world as a lot of invective here, so both the perpetual "victim" / fake conservative spokesbimbo and the administrator are a little less than clear and zero help identifying the infraction. Dealing with people as stupid and lame and pimpy as wannabe Coulterpersons who define themselves as victims, one would at least want to know the specific language the lamo objects to.

"And for all readers here, this idiot turned me in for insulting her and got me some kind of infraction."

This is a total and complete lie.

I challenge you to support that claim.

Tut, tut, chicklet; don't ye ken tis 'ginst t'rules t'post a prvt mssg?

It does seem safe to admit some administrator [name: intense] gave me two points for a post that is about as vulgar as a bowl of cheerios compared to some exchanges. After this I'm filtering you, girl. Anyone that protected can't play in my league.

But on my way out the door it seems safe to point out that you have not addressed the actual issue: did The Founders support flesh and blood rights for bloodless entities? Yes? Or no? Whoever is here after me can evaluate your response.

Goodbye.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well no PC.

It seems you have no idea what Conservatism is..

In a nutshell, conservatives support a powerful government that favors the rich and assures that the population will be of the same ethnic, cultural and religious background.

They support tradition and are averse to change of any sort.

This is a generally accurate assessment, based on both the words and deeds of conservatives.

Conservatives do indeed support a powerful government; the fact that the Bush administration expanded the size and power of government is evidence of that, creating agencies such as the DHS and TSA, enacting the Patriot Act, and standing in opposition to due process rights for terrorist detainees.

The unwarranted and illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of the conservative desire to expand the size and power of government. Conservatives understand that a government ‘at war’ can not be questioned or challenged, and those who do so can be silenced with accusations of being ‘disloyal.’ The ‘Bush doctrine,’ the neo-con policy of ‘nation-building,’ and the ‘war on terror’ in general are all devices used by the right to concentrate power to a ruling rightist elite, as envisioned by the likes of Dick Cheney.

We see conservatives wishing to expand the power and size of government by opposing privacy rights of citizens, by allowing the state to interfere in personal matters concerning contraception and procreation. We see conservative hostile to due process rights for immigrants, and hostile to due process rights by allowing the state to invade citizens’ personal lives, their houses, papers, and effects all in the name of ‘fighting crime’ or ‘fighting “terrorism.”’

We see conservatives wishing to expand the power and size of government by opposing equal protection rights for same-sex couples, allowing un-Constitutional and discriminatory measures to be enacted by the states. Indeed, conservatives exhibit contempt for diversity and dissent – they seek a more powerful government to compel conformity among different ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds out of fear that diversity will ‘change’ America, resulting in their loss of political and economic advantage.

This is actually familiar and ancient tale of the reactionary elite fighting against the forces of change, change which is inevitable and can’t be resisted. A fight against change conservatives are destined to lose, and justifiably so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

you were wrong then and you are wrong now: see last post

"...he was defeated by State Senator Kenneth Hammond in the Democratic Primary."
The Tuscaloosa News - Google News Archive Search


Where is the apology?

In 1973. Bull Connor was not denied reelection by the people of Alabama or the people of Birmingham during the 1960s as you claimed. and .. the 1973 election was statewide and not city the Birmingham

This was my statement: "... and Democrat “Bull” Connor was voted out of office by the people of Alabama."


Who voted him out, the Taliban???



I am correct. You are wrong.
Where is the apology.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, uh, did The Founders you claim to understand support bloodless entities having the rights of natural born citizens, Ms Chicoultergeist?

Either answer the question yes or no, or admit by your silence or rhetorical diversions that you are just another nutball clown bloviating horseshit all over the internet.

And for all readers here, this idiot turned me in for insulting her and got me some kind of infraction. Whoever gave it didn't explain what the offense was and the insult language wasn't in the same world as a lot of invective here, so both the perpetual "victim" / fake conservative spokesbimbo and the administrator are a little less than clear and zero help identifying the infraction. Dealing with people as stupid and lame and pimpy as wannabe Coulterpersons who define themselves as victims, one would at least want to know the specific language the lamo objects to.

"And for all readers here, this idiot turned me in for insulting her and got me some kind of infraction."

This is a total and complete lie.

I challenge you to support that claim.

Tut, tut, chicklet; don't ye ken tis 'ginst t'rules t'post a prvt mssg?

It does seem safe to admit some administrator gave me two points for a post that is about as vulgar as a bowl of cheerios compared to some exchanges. After this I'm filtering you, girl. Anyone that protected can't play in my league.

But on my way out the door it seems safe to point out that you have not addressed the actual issue: did The Founders support flesh and blood rights for bloodless entities? Yes? Or no? Whoever is here after me can evaluate your response.

Goodbye.

You lying sack of excrement, I have never 'reported' anyone nor even given a neg rep.


Admit you made up the claim...or provide evidence.

 

[Dante]

1. So, the struggle ended: Thurgood Marshall had won his cases in the Supreme Court, Eisenhower used the military to enforce the victories, Nixon desegregated the schools and building trades, and Democrat “Bull” Connor was voted out of office by the people of Alabama. And, finally, even a majority of Democrats supported civil rights. Democrat segregationists were defeated.

context. you were not speaking about 1973.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So, uh, did The Founders you claim to understand support bloodless entities having the rights of natural born citizens, Ms Chicoultergeist?

Either answer the question yes or no, or admit by your silence or rhetorical diversions that you are just another nutball clown bloviating horseshit all over the internet.

And for all readers here, this idiot turned me in for insulting her and got me some kind of infraction. Whoever gave it didn't explain what the offense was and the insult language wasn't in the same world as a lot of invective here, so both the perpetual "victim" / fake conservative spokesbimbo and the administrator are a little less than clear and zero help identifying the infraction. Dealing with people as stupid and lame and pimpy as wannabe Coulterpersons who define themselves as victims, one would at least want to know the specific language the lamo objects to.

"And for all readers here, this idiot turned me in for insulting her and got me some kind of infraction."

This is a total and complete lie.

I challenge you to support that claim.

Tut, tut, chicklet; don't ye ken tis 'ginst t'rules t'post a prvt mssg?

It does seem safe to admit some administrator [name: intense] gave me two points for a post that is about as vulgar as a bowl of cheerios compared to some exchanges. After this I'm filtering you, girl. Anyone that protected can't play in my league.

But on my way out the door it seems safe to point out that you have not addressed the actual issue: did The Founders support flesh and blood rights for bloodless entities? Yes? Or no? Whoever is here after me can evaluate your response.

Goodbye.

She beat you hands down. Game. Set. Match to PoliticalChic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. So, the struggle ended: Thurgood Marshall had won his cases in the Supreme Court, Eisenhower used the military to enforce the victories, Nixon desegregated the schools and building trades, and Democrat “Bull” Connor was voted out of office by the people of Alabama. And, finally, even a majority of Democrats supported civil rights. Democrat segregationists were defeated.

context. you were not speaking about 1973.

Nonsense.

Did you see "Nixon" in the quote????


January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974


I'm sick and tired of your squirming to save face.


I’d love to hear the rest of your rant, but I’m very busy…I have several more quarters to flip.

 

[hunarcy]

Bull Connor was never defeated in an election by the people of Alabama as PoliChic claims. Bull was not even defeated in an election for office in Birmingham

"Bull was not even defeated in an election for office in Birmingham"?????? You obviously are unaware that Connor was defeated in 1972 re-election bid, putting an end to his political career.

Makes me wonder what else you are "unaware of but talk about anyway

Bull Connor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia