What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[Circe]

I think that the PRC and USSR are good examples of evolutionary change.

I'm way too far into freedom to ever trust a ruling class.

Oh, I see. You are a communist or a socialist. [:-( Oh, well.

Both the PRC and the USSR have had big revolutionary changes with much terrible bloodshed since the U.S. was founded, so they are hardly examples of evolutionary change. Right-left-right for the PRC and left-right for the Russians.

I don't think there are any examples of evolutionary change. It's not the human condition.

Well, maybe Shangri-La, but we can't find it.

 

[PMZ]

‘Democracy’ needs to be understood in the context of the rule of law and a Constitutional Republic.

Many things are not subject to ‘consensus,’ inalienable rights primary among them.

I never agreed with the term "inalienable rights" because there are so many global examples of rights upheld or taken away by government.

I like your quote's definition better. They are what the bylaws for our governments forbids legislation over.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That would leave a gaping hole in the fabric of US politics. There would be many who would be more than willing to fill that gap, as money is to be made and power to be garnered, at which point we would get a whole new crew of those who would be considered conservative.

Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it? You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum. Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government, and socialist/Marxist economic theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?

And of course those of the radical right are just as insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, reactionaryism, and fascist/Nazi social theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, how many would be instant converts to modern day American liberalism?

 

[PMZ]

I think that the PRC and USSR are good examples of evolutionary change.

I'm way too far into freedom to ever trust a ruling class.

Oh, I see. You are a communist or a socialist. [:-( Oh, well.

Both the PRC and the USSR have had big revolutionary changes with much terrible bloodshed since the U.S. was founded, so they are hardly examples of evolutionary change. Right-left-right for the PRC and left-right for the Russians.

I don't think there are any examples of evolutionary change. It's not the human condition.

Well, maybe Shangri-La, but we can't find it.

I believe in socialism and so do you and so does virtually every government in the world today. Same with capitalism. Both are nearly universal today. It's not either or any more than hammers and screwdrivers are either or.

Consider the changes in PRC and USSR in the last 50 years. How can you not call that evolutionary?

 

[Circe]

I believe in socialism and so do you and so does virtually every government in the world today. Same with capitalism. Both are nearly universal today. It's not either or any more than hammers and screwdrivers are either or.

Consider the changes in PRC and USSR in the last 50 years. How can you not call that evolutionary?

I don't call it evolutionary because it was violently revolutionary.

I'm done; I'm not going down the communism road. I thought you were, you know, a normal American.

Anon.

 

[Foxfyre]

I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left

I don't think the 'Left' hates normal, reasonable, thinking conservatives; I think they hate the crazies, and in recent times, it seems the crazies are taking over the GOP. American politics has become so deeply partisan, it is amazing the country manages to function. The hate goes both ways. We need more than 2 viable parties.

As there are a LOT of leftists among my friends, family, neighbors, and associates I agree. Almost nobody would confuse me with a leftist. But we manage to love each other despite political or ideological differences.

But the fact is, it is an extremely rare leftist who can even define or articulate a clearly conservative point of view in a charitable, accurate, and/or complete manner. Or their own for that matter. Most conservatives can do both fairly competently.

If all liberals/leftists/progressive left, Conservatives would step up to fill any vacuums that would exist and otherwise would not do anything much differently than they do now. They might have a better shot at restoring the government the Founders intended us to have, and would certainly change a lot of things like the media and education, and healthcare that are currently controlled mostly by leftists. But for the most part, it would be pretty much business as usual for them. They certainly would not become leftists.

And I think leftists, without the conservatives to stabilize things, could likely realize what an unsustainable house of cards their philosophy is and would likely start adopting conservative concepts really quickly. The danger would be that things would have spiraled completely out of control and would be irreversible by the time they figured out how to do that.

Anyway, it is an interesting perspective. Might be a vehicle for a profound literary work along the lines of Rand or Orwell.

 

[Meathead]

And of course those of the radical right are just as insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, reactionaryism, and fascist/Nazi social theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, how many would be instant converts to modern day American liberalism?

The problem with American liberalism is that it is intolerant and paranoid. Your post says as much. Obviously, the pendulum is swinging back largely because of that and the ineptness of of liberal leadership.

 

[PMZ]

‘Democracy’ needs to be understood in the context of the rule of law and a Constitutional Republic.

Many things are not subject to ‘consensus,’ inalienable rights primary among them.

"‘Democracy’ needs to be understood in the context of the rule of law and a Constitutional Republic. "

"Democracy" is a way to make decisions either directly or indirectly.

"Rule of law" are the decisions made by authorities.

"Contitutional Republic" means that the terms under which citizens concent to be governed is specified in writing rather than granted by a monarch.

 

[PMZ]

I believe in socialism and so do you and so does virtually every government in the world today. Same with capitalism. Both are nearly universal today. It's not either or any more than hammers and screwdrivers are either or.

Consider the changes in PRC and USSR in the last 50 years. How can you not call that evolutionary?

I don't call it evolutionary because it was violently revolutionary.

I'm done; I'm not going down the communism road. I thought you were, you know, a normal American.

Anon.

There wasn't any violence reported by the news in the last 50 years. At lest no more than in the US.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Democracy’ needs to be understood in the context of the rule of law and a Constitutional Republic.

Many things are not subject to ‘consensus,’ inalienable rights primary among them.

I never agreed with the term "inalienable rights" because there are so many global examples of rights upheld or taken away by government.

I like your quote's definition better. They are what the bylaws for our governments forbids legislation over.

"Inalienable rights" only in the context of the American Constitutional Republic, where there exists a ‘core’ of rights that although not absolute, are nonetheless not subject to being taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

All acts of government are presumed Constitutional until a court rules otherwise. Over the decades and centuries, however, there manifests a body of acknowledged and settled case law (judicial consensus) which clearly sets the boundaries of what acts are and are not Constitutional.

It is incumbent upon lawmaking entities, therefore, to recognize and respect those boundaries, and to enact measures in good faith that conform to Constitutional case law.

In recent years, unfortunately, with regard to a significant number of conservative lawmakers, that has not been the case. And these conservative lawmakers, as well as those who agree with them, have grown increasingly frustrated as the clearly un-Constitutional measures and policies they advocate are appropriately invalidated by the courts. The illegal racial profiling policy by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department in Arizona is yet another example.

 

[Bfgrn]

Size is one thing, but mismanagement is another, so what needs to go on more often (imho), is more and more firings of government employee's who aren't doing their jobs, instead of them thinking they got it made no matter what they do when doing their job's, as if it is a lifetime position or something.

In this graph, did Bush appoint people whom did a good job in their positions, thus causing the line to rise due to it being a good thing or did they mismanage their positions thus seeing this line as being bloated ?

With the blue line is this Obama getting rid of Bush appointee's (targets on their backs, I mean hey the IRS can do it right ?), until he can refill the positions with his own, and isn't there a lot of resistance to whom Obama wants to put into office because of their credentials or radical associations etc. ? Just might explain your graph well in these respects...(grin)

They're payroll jobs, not appointees.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

My experience is that conservatives love constitutions, just not ours. They'd prefer one that shrinks government to the size that they could take home and drown in the bathtub. And one that gives the interpretation and enforcement of the constitutions to them instead of SCOTUS. And one that requires a state religion. And one that specifies daily listening to Rush and Rupert in order to rid the country of dangerous independent thinking.

Nice phrase.

Liberals want a constitution that grows like an acorn. Into a huge oak that takes over everything and sucks up all the water and nourishment from the yard and shades out every other plant.

After nearly sixty years reading, just above is my first reading of a US political statement in which the oak is not the symbol of strength and cover.

Maybe now Old Ironsides can be sold to some corporate titan (on a no-bid arrangement) to make beams and flooring for a vacation home?

 

[Foxfyre]

And in my opinion, anybody who doesn't believe that there are concepts, values, and principles that are superior to other concepts, values, and principles--and most especially those who are unable to articulate concepts, values, and principles without belittling, ridiculing, insulting, or putting somebody down--are leftists by defintiion.

 

[Two Thumbs]

In this graph, did Bush appoint people whom did a good job in their positions, thus causing the line to rise due to it being a good thing or did they mismanage their positions thus seeing this line as being bloated ?

With the blue line is this Obama getting rid of Bush appointee's (targets on their backs, I mean hey the IRS can do it right ?), until he can refill the positions with his own, and isn't there a lot of resistance to whom Obama wants to put into office because of their credentials or radical associations etc. ? Just might explain your graph well in these respects...(grin)

They're payroll jobs, not appointees.

does this include the military?

hate going so far off topic, just interested

 

[Connery]

That would leave a gaping hole in the fabric of US politics. There would be many who would be more than willing to fill that gap, as money is to be made and power to be garnered, at which point we would get a whole new crew of those who would be considered conservative.

Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it? You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum. Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government, and socialist/Marxist economic theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?

I believe many, the heavy lifting in a democracy is done are those willing to fight on a battle field to preserve the freedoms and privileges before enjoying those freedoms and privileges in a safe, controlled environment such as a university or a courtroom.

 

[Foxfyre]

That would leave a gaping hole in the fabric of US politics. There would be many who would be more than willing to fill that gap, as money is to be made and power to be garnered, at which point we would get a whole new crew of those who would be considered conservative.

Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it? You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum. Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government, and socialist/Marxist economic theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?

I believe many, the heavy lifting in a democracy is done are those willing to fight on a battle field to preserve the freedoms and privileges before enjoying those freedoms and privileges in a safe, controlled environment such as a university or a courtroom.

And those not privileged to actually do battle for their country can at least do the heavy lifting necessary to make better choices, educate ourselves, learn a trade, and be willing to start at the bottom and work our way to prosperity. The conservative doesn't want anything from others apart from having his unalienable rights recognized and secured and then to be unhindered in living his life, contributing what he can, accomplishing what he can accomplish. And we all can contribute via self sufficiency, personal responsbility and integrity, and lead by personal example.

Those who grow up with a sense of entitlement that what is theirs is theirs and some of everybody else's should also be theirs are the ones who would be the most shell shocked if they were thrown in with people who are all like them. And when they realize that government serves mostly government, is not a reliable mommy for all the people who want to be provided for, and those people start preying on each other for available resources, I think we would see a whole new generation of staunch conservatives born really quickly.

 

[PMZ]

‘Democracy’ needs to be understood in the context of the rule of law and a Constitutional Republic.

Many things are not subject to ‘consensus,’ inalienable rights primary among them.

I never agreed with the term "inalienable rights" because there are so many global examples of rights upheld or taken away by government.

I like your quote's definition better. They are what the bylaws for our governments forbids legislation over.

"Inalienable rights" only in the context of the American Constitutional Republic, where there exists a ‘core’ of rights that although not absolute, are nonetheless not subject to being taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

All acts of government are presumed Constitutional until a court rules otherwise. Over the decades and centuries, however, there manifests a body of acknowledged and settled case law (judicial consensus) which clearly sets the boundaries of what acts are and are not Constitutional.

It is incumbent upon lawmaking entities, therefore, to recognize and respect those boundaries, and to enact measures in good faith that conform to Constitutional case law.

In recent years, unfortunately, with regard to a significant number of conservative lawmakers, that has not been the case. And these conservative lawmakers, as well as those who agree with them, have grown increasingly frustrated as the clearly un-Constitutional measures and policies they advocate are appropriately invalidated by the courts. The illegal racial profiling policy by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department in Arizona is yet another example.

I'm a strict Constitutionalist. The government that I consent to accept governance from is specified by the Constitution. I may not be in agreement with any particular democratic decision or any SCOTUS judgement, but as long as the Constitution has been followed I'm willing to accept the results.

This expectation that freedom is always getting your way is completely foreign to my culture and up bringing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That would leave a gaping hole in the fabric of US politics. There would be many who would be more than willing to fill that gap, as money is to be made and power to be garnered, at which point we would get a whole new crew of those who would be considered conservative.

Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it? You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum. Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government, and socialist/Marxist economic theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?

I believe many, the heavy lifting in a democracy is done are those willing to fight on a battle field to preserve the freedoms and privileges before enjoying those freedoms and privileges in a safe, controlled environment such as a university or a courtroom.

Interesting, (note I didnt read the book or ever reaserched him) but seen the over hyped movie of WW1 sargent York a few times. Are you saying liberals wont fight for America?

 

[Wyatt earp]

my life experiences tell me poor woman/ singles mother middle class liberal girls work.... liberal guys in those classes not so much.. either in jail, or just quit trying. just saying..........

 

[Wyatt earp]

you have to help me to try to figure this out? why do poor liberal girls work compared to poor liberal guys? I guess its the mother instint gene in them to wake up every day and try to provide for their child that came out of thier womb. Do poor liberal guys get so mad that their girl makes more money then them? that they just quit? interesting.......