What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[M14 Shooter]

Foxfyer wrote, "One has to ask why you would so strenuously object to keeping the voting process honest? For what purpose do you want to make it easier for special interests to corrupt the system?"

I do support free, open and honest elections. Do you recall Harris/Florida and Bush v. Gore? Do you support CU v. FEC and its impact already seen in Iowa? If you and I so value our right to vote, why would be go out of our way to disenfranchise others?

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it require a citizen to provide identification when buying a gun - but, as you said. you do not oppose that.
Explain the difference.

And.. STLL waiting for proof that the intent in all of this is to reduce the number of Dem voters.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No where in the US Constitution does it require a voter to provide Identification.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it require a citizen to provide identification when buying a gun - but, as you said. you do not oppose that.
Explain the difference.

And.. STLL waiting for proof that the intent in all of this is to reduce the number of Dem voters.

I know its rude, but I'll answer your question with one of my own.

Do you believe the Second Amendment protects the right of the insane, drunks, drug addicts, felons and other miscreants from the right to keep and bare Arms and their right shall not be infringed?

I don't need to offer proof of a conspiracy to disenfranchise voters. One who watches, listens and observes current events and frames the same with the historical efforts by other generations to restrict voting can make there own decision.

It is my opinion this effort to require an ID for the 2012 election is based on the canard that widespread voter fraud exists, and is an effort by those who want to see the GOP win the election in 2012 and increase their numbers in the Congress.

This effort is anti-democratic (small 'd', folks) and rejects one of the most fundamental principles of what it means to be American.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No where in the US Constitution does it require a voter to provide Identification.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it require a citizen to provide identification when buying a gun - but, as you said. you do not oppose that.
Explain the difference.

And.. STLL waiting for proof that the intent in all of this is to reduce the number of Dem voters.

I know its rude, but I'll answer your question with one of my own.

Nope - you'll address the issue directly:

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it require a citizen to provide identification when buying a gun - but, as you said. you do not oppose that.
Explain the difference.

I don't need to offer proof of a conspiracy to disenfranchise voters.

It's your claim.
If you want to be taken seriously, you'll offer proof.
You may proceed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyer wrote, "One has to ask why you would so strenuously object to keeping the voting process honest? For what purpose do you want to make it easier for special interests to corrupt the system?"

I do support free, open and honest elections. Do you recall Harris/Florida and Bush v. Gore? Do you support CU v. FEC and its impact already seen in Iowa? If you and I so value our right to vote, why would be go out of our way to disenfranchise others?

Again, if it only 'disenfranchises' Obama supporters with a requirement to identify themselves, isn't that a really pitiful commentary on the sort of people who voted Obama into office? Doesn't that even call into question the legitimacy of his election?

You'll have to show how a requirement to identify oneself in order to cast his/her vote disenfranchises anybody who is eligible to cast that vote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You'll have to show how a requirement to identify oneself in order to cast his/her vote disenfranchises anybody who is eligible to cast that vote.

WC apparently isn't much into offering evidence for his claims or explaining his contradictions. He's good like that.

 

[bripat9643]

No where in the US Constitution does it require a voter to provide Identification. If the GOP and those who support this effort want that to be the law of the land, amend the Constitution.

If it was the Original Intent of the founders to require voter ID, cards would have been invented and each white man of majority age would have been provided with one.

The Constitution allows the states to set their election rules, so your question is a non sequitur. No amendment is required to allow states to continue setting their own election rules.

 

[Foxfyre]

You'll have to show how a requirement to identify oneself in order to cast his/her vote disenfranchises anybody who is eligible to cast that vote.

WC apparently isn't much into offering evidence for his claims or explaining his contradictions. He's good like that.

He has kept it civil though and that is all I require in a debate opponent. I don't require that he or she agree with me.

However, one thing I think the modern American conservative believes is that federal policy should always be made withing the scope of providing the common defense and/or promoting the general welfare and/or protecting our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly the integrity of the electoral process applies is necessary in order for government to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities and therefore it is reasonable to require reasonable means to protect it.

If people cannot be required to identify themselves as eligible to vote, then neither can they realistically be required to identify themselves as eligible to draw Social Security or receive Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, receive a driver's license, get a passport, or any other benefit of government. U.S. citizenship becomes meaningless with no means given the government to protect our borders or population.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You'll have to show how a requirement to identify oneself in order to cast his/her vote disenfranchises anybody who is eligible to cast that vote.

WC apparently isn't much into offering evidence for his claims or explaining his contradictions. He's good like that.

He has kept it civil though and that is all I require in a debate opponent. I don't require that he or she agree with me.

Well of course not - but one -does- expect his opponent to debate honestly, address the questions asked about his positions, and support his positions with substance.
WC apparently doesn't want to do any of those things.

 

[Foxfyre]

WC apparently isn't much into offering evidence for his claims or explaining his contradictions. He's good like that.

He has kept it civil though and that is all I require in a debate opponent. I don't require that he or she agree with me.

Well of course not - but one -does- expect his opponent to debate honestly, address the questions asked about his positions, and support his positions with substance.
WC apparently doesn't want to do any of those things.

Well as an old debate judge, I just score an inability or choice to address the opponents' point as one or more points for the opponent. In other words, those who can't or won't address the issue automatically lose the argument.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Foxfyre wrote:

And in my opinion as a 21st century American conservative, the ONLY compelling state interest is determined by affirmative answers to:
1) Is it necessary to provide the common defense?
2) Does it promote the general welfare (that is for everybody and not any targeted group)?
3. Does it secure the rights of the people?

The common defense is a term open to interpretation; within the context of your writings I infer you interpret that means defending the United States against all (human) enemies, is that correct?

When I read those words, I see the meaning a bit more broadly - hence our different perspective on our Constitution. I see the Federal Government has a role in protecting us from disease; from such a perspective I see the role of government in providing preventative protections to all citizens as part of providing a common defense.

Such preventative protections would be provided to all citizens, high born and the poor meeting the general welfare condition of available to all of the nation.

Finally we get to securing the rights of all citizens. Given the effort by the Republican Party to root out voter fraud, many states are in the process of changing the laws on what ID must be presented by a person who wishes to vote. Everyone - at least every honest person - understands this is an effort to unlevel the playing field and exclude voters who are likely to vote for Obama.

Which leads us back to the beginning. Is not the right to vote an issue worth defending? It is a slippery slope which allows for the disenfranchisement of the few in 2012 to the disenfranchisement of the many in 2016?

The United States Supreme Court already ruled in an Indiana case that supported (by a 6 to 3 decision) the concept of photo ID for voters [ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/world/americas/28iht-28cndscotus.12403138.html ]. If it's the Constitutional right of a registered voter to be able to express their decision on electing a representative who supports their choice of direction this nation is to take, should that individual right NOT find itself to be compromised and with some added certainty protected? If you support the concept of a government system that can provide someone with a free cell phone who can't otherwise afford one, why not a photo ID to vote? Are the priorities of importance rather skewed, distorted, or otherwise out of place? The left supports wealth re-distribution, a bombardment of government regulations imposed by Washington bureaucrats onto others, but of something as important as the Constitutional right to vote they NOW want to start to harp and complain about "government enforcement".

 

[Wry Catcher]

Foxfyer wrote, "One has to ask why you would so strenuously object to keeping the voting process honest? For what purpose do you want to make it easier for special interests to corrupt the system?"

I do support free, open and honest elections. Do you recall Harris/Florida and Bush v. Gore? Do you support CU v. FEC and its impact already seen in Iowa? If you and I so value our right to vote, why would be go out of our way to disenfranchise others?

Again, if it only 'disenfranchises' Obama supporters with a requirement to identify themselves, isn't that a really pitiful commentary on the sort of people who voted Obama into office? Doesn't that even call into question the legitimacy of his election?

No, your side needs to arrest, detain and charge those without 'proper' ID with attempted election fraud. Try them and if you can prove fraud, fine or imprison them.

You'll have to show how a requirement to identify oneself in order to cast his/her vote disenfranchises anybody who is eligible to cast that vote.

People who rely on medicare, social security and other federal programs are not pitiful, I suggest you consider how such comments frame your brand of conservativism.

 

[Wry Catcher]

He has kept it civil though and that is all I require in a debate opponent. I don't require that he or she agree with me.

Well of course not - but one -does- expect his opponent to debate honestly, address the questions asked about his positions, and support his positions with substance.
WC apparently doesn't want to do any of those things.

Well as an old debate judge, I just score an inability or choice to address the opponents' point as one or more points for the opponent. In other words, those who can't or won't address the issue automatically lose the argument.

Sadly MN14 Shooter is incapable of understanding, or chooses to ask the same question previously answered because its explanation was not what he wanted to hear.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Well of course not - but one -does- expect his opponent to debate honestly, address the questions asked about his positions, and support his positions with substance.
WC apparently doesn't want to do any of those things.

Well as an old debate judge, I just score an inability or choice to address the opponents' point as one or more points for the opponent. In other words, those who can't or won't address the issue automatically lose the argument.

Sadly MN14 Shooter is incapable of understanding, or chooses to ask the same question previously answered because its explanation was not what he wanted to hear.

I never saw an explanation that addressed his question either.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Foxfyre wrote:

And in my opinion as a 21st century American conservative, the ONLY compelling state interest is determined by affirmative answers to:
1) Is it necessary to provide the common defense?
2) Does it promote the general welfare (that is for everybody and not any targeted group)?
3. Does it secure the rights of the people?

The common defense is a term open to interpretation; within the context of your writings I infer you interpret that means defending the United States against all (human) enemies, is that correct?

When I read those words, I see the meaning a bit more broadly - hence our different perspective on our Constitution. I see the Federal Government has a role in protecting us from disease; from such a perspective I see the role of government in providing preventative protections to all citizens as part of providing a common defense.

Such preventative protections would be provided to all citizens, high born and the poor meeting the general welfare condition of available to all of the nation.

Finally we get to securing the rights of all citizens. Given the effort by the Republican Party to root out voter fraud, many states are in the process of changing the laws on what ID must be presented by a person who wishes to vote. Everyone - at least every honest person - understands this is an effort to unlevel the playing field and exclude voters who are likely to vote for Obama.

Which leads us back to the beginning. Is not the right to vote an issue worth defending? It is a slippery slope which allows for the disenfranchisement of the few in 2012 to the disenfranchisement of the many in 2016?

The United States Supreme Court already ruled in an Indiana case that supported (by a 6 to 3 decision) the concept of photo ID for voters [ U.S. Supreme Court upholds voter identification law in Indiana - The New York Times ]. If it's the Constitutional right of a registered voter to be able to express their decision on electing a representative who supports their choice of direction this nation is to take, should that individual right NOT be compromised and with some added certainty protected? If you support the concept of a government system that can provide someone with a free cell phone who can't otherwise afford one, why not a photo ID to vote? Are the priorities of importance rather skewed, distorted, or otherwise out of place? The left supports wealth re-distribution, a bombardment of government regulations imposed by Washington bureaucrats onto others, but of something as important as the Constitutional right to vote they NOW want to start to harp and complain about "government enforcement".

A basic, essential, necessary concept attached to the right to vote that you, the potential voter, are who you say you are - the right to vote has no meaning unless this is assured.

As such, even if requiring an ID violated your right to vote (good luck with -that- argument), it is impossible to argue that the state has no compelling interest in said requirement, and that a simple ID check is the least restrictive means to that end.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well of course not - but one -does- expect his opponent to debate honestly, address the questions asked about his positions, and support his positions with substance.
WC apparently doesn't want to do any of those things.

Well as an old debate judge, I just score an inability or choice to address the opponents' point as one or more points for the opponent. In other words, those who can't or won't address the issue automatically lose the argument.

Sadly MN14 Shooter is incapable of understanding, or chooses to ask the same question previously answered because its explanation was not what he wanted to hear.

More abject, willfull dishonesty on your part.
No surprise.

Truth is you do not meaningfully address the issues put to you because you lack the capacity to do so and the intellectual honesty to admit as much.

 

[bripat9643]

Well of course not - but one -does- expect his opponent to debate honestly, address the questions asked about his positions, and support his positions with substance. WC apparently doesn't want to do any of those things.

You don't actually expect to get honesty from a liberal, do you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well of course not - but one -does- expect his opponent to debate honestly, address the questions asked about his positions, and support his positions with substance. WC apparently doesn't want to do any of those things.

You don't actually expect to get honesty from a liberal, do you?

I do from honest liberals.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well as an old debate judge, I just score an inability or choice to address the opponents' point as one or more points for the opponent. In other words, those who can't or won't address the issue automatically lose the argument.

Sadly MN14 Shooter is incapable of understanding, or chooses to ask the same question previously answered because its explanation was not what he wanted to hear.

I never saw an explanation that addressed his question either.

That's because there was none, and he knows it.
Apparently, he enjoys lying to himself.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Foxfyer wrote, "One has to ask why you would so strenuously object to keeping the voting process honest? For what purpose do you want to make it easier for special interests to corrupt the system?"

I do support free, open and honest elections. Do you recall Harris/Florida and Bush v. Gore? Do you support CU v. FEC and its impact already seen in Iowa? If you and I so value our right to vote, why would be go out of our way to disenfranchise others?

Again, if it only 'disenfranchises' Obama supporters with a requirement to identify themselves, isn't that a really pitiful commentary on the sort of people who voted Obama into office? Doesn't that even call into question the legitimacy of his election?

No, your side needs to arrest, detain and charge those without 'proper' ID with attempted election fraud. Try them and if you can prove fraud, fine or imprison them.

You'll have to show how a requirement to identify oneself in order to cast his/her vote disenfranchises anybody who is eligible to cast that vote.

People who rely on medicare, social security and other federal programs are not pitiful, I suggest you consider how such comments frame your brand of conservativism.

People who rely on government programs for support, like welfare, don't necessarily have to provide much of an effort themselves to earn a better way of life. Why should they work hard to provide what the government freely gives them, where is the incentive? Does that not make the Federal Government an enabler to poverty in America? After all, how many cities in heavily blue Democratic states have found their policies have resulted in a reduction in the poverty level of those areas? Where have these low income individuals found success OUTSIDE of just nursing from the Federal Government?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sadly MN14 Shooter is incapable of understanding, or chooses to ask the same question previously answered because its explanation was not what he wanted to hear.

I never saw an explanation that addressed his question either.

That's because there was none, and he knows it.
Apparently, he enjoys lying to himself.

He's caught, but he'd rather stick to his guns and his party than admit the blatant hypocrisy.



In these sort of instancs I don't know why the posters don't just leave the thread, rather than come back and pretend everyone else has the problem.