Recently on the other thread one of our resident liberals tried to define one of our regular conservative posters as typifying conservative thought. Ironically this liberal has never been able to define conservatism despite many calls from conservatives for him to do just that, so allow me to define what conservatism is to me on just four issues. Of course this is just me, I do not speak for any other conservative poster here but I would like to hear from the other conservatives on their thoughts, as well as the liberals. so here goes:
Government – I would like to see a more limited and a more constitutional federal government, with as many programs as possible pushed down to the state level, this would include Medicare, Medicaid, education, etc. In fact I would be open to discussing the possibility of having nearly every entitlement program administered at the state level. I would also like to means test social security and Medicare. Means testing would mean less benefits for the rich, allowing more aid for the poor, and if that aid were administered at the state level, it would be more efficient and effective. I would then like to evaluate every federal program and determine first the need, then the size and scope. In my opinion, we could eliminate many programs altogether and then trim every other department by a minimum of 10% without sacrificing a thing.
Economy – I am firm believer in competition. Competition improves people, product and service every time and brings prices down. Government stifles competition so naturally I would like to see as little government involvement as possible in the private sector. Obviously some industries need more regulation than others, but the best and most effective regulation government can exact, is the justice department. As long as the government ensures that everyone plays by the rules, the private markets will work just fine.
Abortion – life begins at conception, period. Therefore abortion is manslaughter, however, I do agree that this detestable practice should be made available in the event of rape, incest, or provable physical harm to the mother. Aside from that, I wish our society would stop glorifying this practice as a “choice” and start stigmatizing it, and educating both men and women on the numerous ways to prevent it. It is not a choice.
Gay Marriage – I fully support civil unions with all the legal rights therein, and not only for same sex couples, but for many other unions as well. I believe marriage should be reserved for the time honored tradition of the one man and one woman union. This is a union that is universal, and pre dates nearly all other institutions including many governments, so it should be left alone. Besides, marriage is not a right.
So this is just where I stand on these four issues. I invite everyone to comment on my positions, and include their own on not just these topics but others as well. Have fun.
Blogs For Victory 
Conservative thought in my opinion, goes way back … it consists of preserving, defending, and implementing:
1. Small, non-intrusive government
2. Free market, capitalist economy
3. Life – from conception until natural death
4. Marriage
All of which have their grounding defined according to the Bible.
Yet it is possible to believe in each and every one of the points you make without having an iota of belief in the Bible.
It is possible to have Hindu Conservatives, Jewish Conservatives, agnostic or atheist Conservatives, Wiccan Conservatives, etc.
I agree on every issue, perhaps for different reasons, but I still agree. I am a social conservative first. Yet, still a strong fiscal conservative.
I am a born again Christian so I believe all men to be unfit to reign as King. There is only one real King, and his name is Jesus. Therefore, I believe governments of men must be limited for the protection of the masses. That’s what our Constitution does. Liberals believe they can interrupts the Constitution as a living document allowing them to reduce the limits put on our elected leaders. This cuts across the grain of our forefather’s intent, which is frightening. Our problems are, from my world view, directly link to the actions of our imperfect leadership; the more power they have, the worse it will get for us all.
Fairness is not found in the act of confiscating one man labor to feed another. That does, however, define tyranny. Charity springs from a genuine fairness of mind. Taxation does not. The world is a dog eat dog place. Competition is indispensable to the operation of a free market place. Fairness dictates a level playing field and that’s it. We do not owe a business a thing. Business exists solely to make a profit. It operates in its own best interest just like everything else in this fallen world. Competition restrains business’s ability to take advantage of consumer bringing fairness to table. The lack of competition coupled with a lack of accountability lends itself to Solyndra, cia running hookers and the GSA debacle.
God is the giver and the taker of life. Thou shall not kill. Abortion is murder. I cannot, in confidence or good conscience, vote to elect someone who cannot grasp such a basic moral concept; good leadership requires high moral standards from, which fairness springs and fairness is indispensable to good government. Convenience is not a right. The choice has already been made where pregnancy is concerned. Life, cannot be rightly discarded for sake of convenience. In the case of rape, incest and health I would reiterate that God alone is the rightful giver and taker of life.
Sex is a behavior not a lifestyle. Marriage, instituted by God, is designed to blend two families together through procreation. Rearing a child is not procreating. Nor, is believing marriage to be solely between a man and a woman a civil rights violation, because sex is behavior and society must restrict human behavior to govern well. Only by beliving the Constitution to be a living document, to be inputted as is please by each successive generation, can one even begin to repeat such nonsense concerning civil rights with a straight face. Unless the guys in 1787 thought gay marriage was a right, and you are prepared to make that argument, don’t make me laugh with the civil rights argument. Chick Filet serves as clear example of liberal thought on fairness. If you disagree, keep your mouth shut, but what about the right of free speech? You cannot trample one right to establish a new one that will last. Generations overlap.
This is one area where Ryan is at least being consistent with conservative principles in that he is the co-sponsor of a bill before the house that would criminalize in-vitro fertilization.
Many pro-life couples show no moral hesitation in opting for in-vitro fertilisation despite the fact that their surplus, fertilised embryos are effectively discarded once a successful implantation takes place.
I am always interested in the odd tactic of taking a very few isolated incidents and trying to use them to indict an entire group of people, or an entire belief system, on that basis.
Most who are truly and ardently pro-life do NOT just agree to have those fertilized embryos “discarded” but either store them for future implantation or offer them to women who cannot produce eggs. Or have you missed (or been blind to) the lawsuits against reproductive laboratories for discarding embryos without the consent of the parents?
I am sure you think you are making a devastating point here, but all you are doing is playing a game, one we have seen before and find distasteful. It is the same game as sneering, at people who believe that the definition of marriage should be the union of one man and one woman, that we can’t possibly be serious about wanting to defend marriage in this way because so many people get divorced.
By the “standards” of the RRL and its PL minions, once a law or principle is violated it negates the entire law. So once someone drives drunk the law against drunk driving should be discarded. Or, if the driver is against drunk driving but used very poor judgment while under the influence, that person’s core belief that drunk driving is wrong is suddenly, automatically, canceled out.
It’s petty, it’s silly, but it is a staple of the rabble who are more comfortable with it than with the effort it would take to actually understand and discuss actual POLITICS.
Amazona: I am always interested in the odd tactic of taking a very few isolated incidents and trying to use them to indict an entire group of people, or an entire belief system, on that basis… Most who are truly and ardently pro-life do NOT just agree to have those fertilized embryos “discarded” but either store them for future implantation or offer them to women who cannot produce eggs.
It’s not just “a very few isolated incidents”. We’re talking about many hundreds of thousands of embryos languishing, RIGHT NOW, in freezers around the US. It’s nice that some “offer them to women who can’t produce” but that’s very unlikely to happen. Regardless of how good the initial intentions are, the fact is that for over 99% of the embryos put in a freezer, their fate is to perish there. In short, the intentions you expressed offer a feel good cop-out and nothing more. Worse, the numbers I mentioned only include the fraction of embryos spawned by virtue of in-vitro fertilization that make it to the freezer. Many millions more are simply discarded if they aren’t implanted. And yet you say it’s “a very few isolated incidents”?! That’s a ridiculous argument.
You mentioned the lawsuits against “reproductive laboratories for discarding embryos without the consent of the parents”. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect many of the cases represent a disagreement as to the embryo’s current and future viability, and/or whether everything has been done to extend the viability of the embryo past its stated expiration date, rather than some amoral, anti-regulatory, and therefore illegal attempt to increase freezer space in pursuit of greater profits. If there is wrongdoing involved, then I’m all for prosecuting. That said, what does your perception of “conservative thought” indicate about the parents who wish that their remaining embryos be dedicated to stem cell research as opposed to being frozen or discarded?
rico, if they are “languishing” they are not, discarded are they?
Though your odd terminology suggests that they suffer from ennui.
Amazona: rico, if they are “languishing” they are not, discarded are they? … Though your odd terminology suggests that they suffer from ennui.
OMG, that’s it? Is that really all you have to say? Wow.
It’s just that I tire of you zeroing in on a passing comment that really has nothing to do with the thread and trying to blow it up into some major discussion point. I found nothing in your post relevant to anything we are talking about. watson tried a typical Lib trick of saying that some people do not practice what they preach and gave the destruction of unused embryos as an example. It’s not the thread, it’s not relevant to the thread, it’s not relevant to politics, and the only reason I answered at all was the bizarre image of embryos “languishing”.
“This is a very thoughtful piece, Cluster, and I share each of the values you laid out.
However, in MY opinion, the last two are personal social and moral issues, and not political.
In MY opinion Conservatism is just about the belief that we must be governed by our Constitution. So your second value would be a natural part of the first.
Therefore, in MY view, one could believe, as I understand Jews do, that the soul of an infant enters it at birth and therefore abortion is not killing a child, and still be a Constitutional Conservative. This is a moral issue with which I strongly disagree, but in my mind it is completely unrelated to conservatism.
A Constitutional Conservative who believes that abortion is not immoral would also have to believe, to be consistent, that laws on abortion must either be passed and enforced on the state level or be part of a Constitutional amendment. But the defining element would be the underlying belief that the Constitution is the best way to govern our nation.
Ditto for gay marriage.
I believe that within Constitutional Conservatism, under the “big tent” there is room for disagreement on issues like abortion and gay marriage, but I believe that including them in the very DEFINITION of Conservatism carves out a whole swath of people and tells them that although they share our political views they also have to agree with us on our moral and social views as well. And so they go to the side that hides its ideology behind stated agreement with those issues and the nation ends up being governed by people who ignore and subvert the Constitution.
The Left uses social and moral issues to divide people, and to lure people into voting for a brutal and always-faIled political system under the belief that they are voting for social issues that appeal to them. They are quite successful at this, as we can see by the few efforts people here have made to explain why they are Leftists.
Not one of them has said “I vote for Democrats because I want a huge and powerful central government with no restraints on its growth or its scope of power.” Not one. They all flock to the Left because of the various issues the Left has claimed.
And what do we do? We aid and abet this bait-and-switch by saying “Yeah, the Left is correct, to be one of us you have to not care about those issues”.
I think we need to pare down our definition of Conservative to only its true political component and then tell people that their individual issues, whether they be abortion or gay marriage or food and housing for the poor or whatever have to be addressed within the framework of a Constitutional government.
I believe that including them (social issues) in the very DEFINITION of Conservatism carves out a whole swath of people and tells them that although they share our political views they also have to agree with us on our moral and social views as well. – Amazona
That’s a real good point, and I agree.
This is why I have been so insistent that we keep the definition of CONSERVATIVE limited to only the true, basic, POLITICAL aspect.
If you read what most Conservatives write, you have to believe that to vote for Mitt Romney you have to agree with these people on EVERYTHING else.
Why do we want to alienate and drive away these voters, these people who share our views on the Constitution, on the exceptionalism that is America, on the need to step back from the cliff of unrestrained federal size and power, just because they do not accept the wholehearted and all-consuming religious fervor of Jeremiah, or the anti-gay position of neocon?
It’s foolish and self-destructive.
What about people who think that God created gay people, too, and that there is nothing inherently wrong or evil about being attracted only to people of the same gender? Why do we want to tell them they can only call themselves Conservative if they abandon this belief and declare homosexuality vile and disgusting?
Why do we insist on telling them if they don’t, they just have to vote for Obama?
, or the anti-gay position of neocon?
NOT so
It’s the AGENDA….. baaaaaby
hate the sin, love the sinner.
What Amazona alluded to is a fractionation in contemporary conservative thought. I realize Amazona doesn’t like to discuss the history, the philosophy, or even the general etiology of terms, so I will try to restrict myself to their 21st century meanings. As I see it, in the here-and-now, “conservatism” involves three trains of thought: (a) fiscal issues; (b) moral issues, and; (c) defense issues. The problem is that both logically and historically, those three things haven’t necessarily gone together. Apparently, from what I’ve gleaned from the present post, that confusion is on-going. And this is B4V, for crying out loud! So maybe a little history, philosophy, and etiology is in order.
Anyway, welcome to the technicolor world.
As I see it, in the here-and-now, “conservatism” involves three trains of thought: (a) fiscal issues; (b) moral issues, and; (c) defense issues.
ALL three are inter twined
“As I see it, in the here-and-now, “conservatism” involves three trains of thought: (a) fiscal issues; (b) moral issues, and; (c) defense issues. ”
Except these are all ISSUES and not IDEOLOGY.
Great discussion topic, Cluster. As usual, you and I are pretty much on the same page, although my concept of modern Conservatism does gravitate in the same direction as Amazona. I’m a fiscal Conservative first and a social Conservative second, not because life and the sanctity of marriage aren’t important, but because without a solvent government, a thriving free-market economy and individual liberty, they are irrelevant.
Throughout most of my life, Conservatism was viewed by most non-Conservatives as reactionary, or, at the very least, conserving the status quo. If our society wasn’t “progressing”, we were stagnating; never mind that what we were supposedly “progressing” toward was never clearly defined (and still isn’t). Barry Goldwater brought the term “Conservative” to the forefront, and Ronald Reagan really defined it in the modern sense that it’s primarily, as Amazona so often reminds us (and no, that’s not a criticism), about the best way to govern the nation. I’m sure we’ll get the usual Reagan bashing from our “enlightened” and “tolerant” Liberals about how he wouldn’t even be welcome in today’s GOP (which is total B.S.), but, unless one has read Reagan’s personal writings, much of what you think you know about him from the MSM is probably inaccurate. Unless you lived through the Cold War and served in the military for much of it, you can’t begin to fathom the historical impact that Ronald Reagan had. There wouldn’t even be a modern Conservative movement without Reagan.
Growing up, both of my grandfathers and my dad were businessmen and entrepreneurs, and, as such, gravitated toward the Republican Party because the GOP was more friendly toward business. Although it was often painted by Democrats as the party of the rich, no one on either side of my family was ever rich. That hasn’t changed much, although the Democrat Party has mastered the crony aspect of capitalism pretty well, while still maintaining that Republicans’ whole philosophy is built around tax cuts for the rich. It’s actually gotten to the point where I just laugh in Democrats face when they bring it up. Democrats attitude toward business can be summed up in one word: Solyndra — harness those aspects of business that can be bought with political favors. Democrats have turned it into an art form.
The Democrat Party, during most of the 20th century, was also the party of war, while the GOP was the party of a strong defense. I never really made the Constitutional connection until I served in the navy, particularly during the Carter administration, but national defense is one of, if not THE primary Constitutional mandates of the Federal Government, and, for most of my adult life, Democrats have spit on that, while Republicans have championed it.
I’m kind of rambling on here — guess I need another cup of coffee on this beautiful Sunday morning. bottom line, I agree pretty much 100% with Amazona’s post at 10:11 AM.
Goldwater/Regan, IMHO but it is a very humble opinion.
One thing that jumps out at me as I read this thread is that Conservatives care about having a clear and coherent vision of our ideology, and that we are quite willing to discuss our differences in a serious and civil manner.
I remember our recent primary process and the biggest issue being whether a candidate was conservative enough. Have you ever seen a Democrat debate on whether a Dem was Liberal enough?
It just seems clear that on this side of the aisle, we focus on our ideology and we are not afraid to discuss it, argue about it, and refine it, while on other side ideology is the last thing you will encounter in any discussion, given the Left’s need to hide its ideology behind emotion-based issues.
OT, but, from a retired sailor’s perspective, this is just way cool.
It’s on TV right now.
I was tickled to hear that the Constitution was going to sail again, even for just a few minutes.
I am a huge Patrick O’Brian fan, and my husband was really happy to see me become so involved in the books he liked so much. One day he asked what was going on in the book I was reading, and I said that we were at the battle between the USS Constitution and HMS Java. He took me into the family room and showed me a naval print I’d seen but never paid attention to—-a depiction of that very battle.
I made a point of putting that same print in my new living room. I don’t know why, but it just pleased me to have a print of a battle described in the book.
Only 4 sails of 34 but still a mighty ship.
I would also like to means test social security and Medicare. (from Cluster’s main post)
There’s an interesting AP article on my home page this morning about how to make Social Security solvent far into the future. In this discussion about Conservatism, let’s remind ourselves who it is that has blocked every attempt to fix S.S. since the early 80’s. Let’s remind ourselves that Democrats have seen the value of the issue of a broken Social Security program as more important than fixing it for future generations. This was NEVER more evident than during Bush 43’s first term when he attempted to generate bi-partisam support for reforming S.S. He invited Democrats to be part of the solution and said EVERYTHING was on the table. They told him to pound sand. You young people reading this — remember that on November 6th.
The above linked article outlines a number of reforms, how much each would extend the viability of S.S. as well as how much longer they would have extended it if they had just been enacted as recently as 2 years ago, illustrating just how rapidly we’re losing the window of opportunity to fix a program that is the Holy Grail of Progressivism. And who is is that’s dragging their feet? Progressives. Perhaps one of our resident Lefties can explain that to me.
This was posted on another site….but IMnHO GREAT!
“The Wreck of the Obama-Biden (with apologies to Gordon Lightfoot)
The velveted paws of the typing tabby | 08-19-2012 | grey_whiskers
Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2012 9:54:27 AM by grey_whiskers
The Wreck of the Obama-Biden
The Legend lives on from Chicago on Down
of the group that they call “The Tea Party”
This hate group, they say, loves to eat Chik-Fil-A
and their votes in November are hearty.
With a deficit score some fifteen trillion more
than the Obama-Biden had starting
That good ticket and proud was lost like Maureen Dowd
when November’s Red State surge came early.
The ship was the pride of the Democrat side
who swore they would take back Wisconsin
As the Socialists go, it was lefter than most
‘cause they came from Chicago or Harvard
rounded out with some hacks who came from Goldman Sachs
who hadn’t paid all of their own tax
And later that term did they all start to squirm
could it be a subpoena they were fearing?
The oil prices gave a tell-tale jump
and the gas-prices leaped at the pump
And every man knew, as the Pres’dent did too
was the ghost of Jimmy Carter come stealin’
Healthcare came late and gay marriage had to wait
after November of Two Thousand And Ten
When the votes all came in, the House had caved in
in the face of a Teanami maelstrom
In their first campaign they sounded quite lame,
“Stand up, Chuck!” (God love you, what am I sayin’?)
In the second campaign, to discredit Bain, Obama said,
“Fellas, you didn’t build that.”
Axelrod wired in, no donations came in
their supporters had gone into hidin’.
And in every town where the teleprompter went down
‘twas the wreck of the Obama-Biden.
Does anyone know where Election Night goes
when Red States turn the minutes to hours?
The pundits all guess they’d have won the Midwest
if they’d put Governor Walker behind ‘em.
They might have split up and put Hillary in
if they hadn’t been called out by Palin
And all that remains are the feces (no names)
of the Occupy Wall Street crowd failin’.
Illinois cheats, and New York repeats
as the bluest, of deep-blue-state havens
California gleams, like a socialist’s dreams
Its coastland and cities progressive
And in the East, Washington, DC at least
takes in all the taxes they send her
And elections go as Congressmen know
as the Tea Party in November remembers
In a far-left-wing Church in Chicago they prayed,
in “Bill Ayers’ Communist Cathedral”
The church bell chimed, it rang fifty-seven times
for each state sinking Obama-Biden
The Legend lives on from Chicago on Down
of the group that they call “The Tea Party”
Republicans, they said, made the map turn pure red
when the Teanami of November came early!“
This man sums it up in very few words
This blog has been sliding into hateful rhetoric and we have made a decision to call a halt to it, from both sides. Moderators’ call—no whining. //Moderator
I had an interesting exchange with a Liberal I frequently encounter at our local YMCA last week. This guy is the quintessential Lefty, involved in numerous local and regional left-wing causes and an enthusiastic Obama supporter in 2008. I will grant that he’s always civil in his discussions with me, but he never leaves any doubt that he thinks I’m stupid and ignorant. I hadn’t seen him in a while, and when I encountered him in the locker room, he smiled and asked if I was enthusiastic about voting for Romney. I told him no, that I was going to have to support Obama this time around. It was one of those times that, had he been drinking something, it would definitely have shot out through his nose. Finally he composed himself enough to ask what had changed my mind. I told him I kind of owed Obama since my business got nearly $150,000 in no-strings-attached stimulus money from a program for businesses being hurt by technological change. I’ve never seen this guy speechless before, and it was all I could do to keep a straight face.
Cluster said, “I would like to see a more limited and a more constitutional federal government.”
A more constitutional federal government? Are you saying that parts of our current federal government are not constitutional? Which parts, and according to who? Even the health care mandate in ObamaCare is constitutional per the Supreme Court under the federal government’s power of taxation. Either it is or it isn’t, it’s not a question of more or less. The Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional; therefore, it is. You may not like it, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional, no matter how often Little Amy whines about it.
Cluster said, “I would be open to discussing the possibility of having nearly every entitlement program administered at the state level.”
How would this work for, say, Social Security? What if, over the my lifetime, I work in five different states? At retirement age, would I collect from each of those states? What about Social Security survivor benefits–you know, the ones Paul Ryan received and used to help him pay for college? Which state would be on the hook for those? The one the father was living in at the time of his death? The ones he worked for before he died? What if the children then move to another state? Do they keep collecting? Would the father have had to live in the state for a certain length of time before his children would be eligible for survivor benefits? It seems that there are any number of practical problems that would make such a plan unwieldy. And for what purpose? Just so you could claim the federal government doesn’t administer it?
As for means testing, I agree that it would be a good idea. Rich people like NeoClown shouldn’t be receiving Social Security.
Cluster said, “Obviously some industries need more regulation than others.” Agreed. We need regulation.
watstooge
We need regulation.
I agree lets regulate this.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. THE NATURALS, OR NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, ARE THOSE BORN IN THE COUNTRY, OF PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on
neo, this is an interesting partial quote. Will you please cite its source? Thanks
The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,
§ 212. Of the citizens and naturals.
neo, you seem to have forgotten the lengthy discussion on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, and others, in which I repeatedly went back to the wording in the Constitution.
I know what the Constitution says and your partial quote does not appear in it.
It also did not appear, to my recollection, in the long and detailed and heavily referenced debate on the topic a few months ago, right here on this blog—–a debate in which I believe you participated.
And I don’t remember seeing this quote before. That is why I asked.
Thank you for the citation.
Clown said, “Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758.”
So now the United States of America should be governed by “The Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758?
I thought the constitution was crystal clear in all matters.
“So now the United States of America should be governed by “The Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758?”
See, it’s this kind of purposeful dishonesty that makes it so hard to be civil to the PL trolls who infest this site. There is not only no effort to be truthful, there is an ongoing pattern of purposeful deceit.
Any document is written in the vernacular of the day, with the accepted definitions of commonly used words.
Someone a couple of hundred years from now might have trouble sorting out the meanings of two 20th Century documents, both of them using the word “gay”. The only way to sort it out would be to investigate the sources of the term, both the original source and its morphing into something very different.
Clearly the term “natural born citizen” was well understood at the time, as shown in earlier writings as well. And the book “The Law of Nations” was read by most if not all of the Founding Fathers, as they found its philosophy very interesting and informative. There is evidence that they were influenced by it.
Therefore, it is logical and natural and accepted investigative practice to look at the contemporaneous use of a word or phrase when trying to sort out its meaning. It is quite appropriate to cite Vattel’s work as an example of the accepted definition of “natural born citizen” at the time it was used in the United States Constitution.
A normal person would have looked at the reference to “The Law of Nations” and the quote and thought “Oh, I see, that’s the way the term was used at that time”. The PL trolls try to find a way to be snide, so we get “So now the United States of America should be governed by “The Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758?”, dripping with scorn and snot.
It’s what we have learned to expect from them.
wattle, just for a change why don’t you come here to explain why your preferred system is better than ours? It might actually add something to the discussion, for a change. It’s interesting that you seem to self-define as nothing but a speed bump.
Rather than go into each and every federal program that has stretched, distorted, exceeded or simply ignored Constitutional restraints on the size, scope and power of the federal government, I leave it up to you to pick any federal program you like and see if it complies with the 10th Amendment. Of course, to do that you would have to go back to examine the enumerated powers allowed to the federal government in the original body of the Constitution. Just remember, the Bill of Rights, which includes the 10th Amendment, was written by the same people who wrote the original body of the Constitution, to fulfill a promise to make doubly sure that it was absolutely clear to all, in perpetuity, that the federal government could never take on anything not specifically assigned to it.
If you were to come back here with a federal program you think Conservatives might find outside the purview of the Constitution, and you have an argument to prove that it IS allowed under the 10th Amendment, you might actually break new ground and embark on actual political discourse, instead of sniping and snarling.
The recent Supreme Court opinion did not address the Constitutionality of the entire “health care” bill. It did not do so because it was not asked to. It was asked to rule specifically on one aspect of the bill, and one aspect only, and that was the constitutionality of the mandate to purchase private health insurance. (Feel free to go back to read the transcripts,) The Court ruled that, under the argument made by government lawyers that this was a tax and not a fine, it could be considered constitutional. While I find this argument specious, and a toe in the door of future expansion of federal power, such as “taxing” people for not complying with other things Big Brother determines to be in our best interest, such as using reusable grocery bags or using snow tires in the winter, I don’t argue with it. It is what it is.
We pretty much agree we are stuck with Social Security as a federal program, in spite of writings by the Founding Fathers that no form of charity was ever intended to be a part of the enumerated duties of the federal government. I don’t see a way to change that, at least not unless and until we have a populace which is willing to take responsibility for its own future.
I do point out, however, that a reformed Social Security system, in which people can choose to either continue with the plan as it is or invest their money in other retirement plans, will eventually result in Social Security dying on the vine. If, in fifty years, most retirees have income from private investment instead of directly from the government, the issue may become moot. As our system now allows a man to live in a dozen different states, invest for his future in various investment vehicles, and collect his interest and dividends no matter where he chooses to retire, the same thing will be true of those who opt out of the Social Security system as it now functions. When most people opt out of the system, and the alternative is shown to be so much better, I predict that the plan will wither away.
As for regulation, I have never heard a single Conservative say we need no regulation. On the contrary, we all agree that some regulation is necessary.
Little Amy said, “I leave it up to you to pick any federal program you like and see if it complies with the 10th Amendment.”
Fine. The health care mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act complies for the reasons the Supreme Court stated.
Little Amy said, “We pretty much agree we are stuck with Social Security as a federal program, in spite of writings by the Founding Fathers that no form of charity was ever intended to be a part of the enumerated duties of the federal government.”
Too bad the Founding Fathers failed to write that into the constitution, which as you know, is crystal clear in all matters of governance of the United States of America.
Cheater—–we already covered that.
Do you think you can avoid being caught as an ignorant blusterer?
Just go to something I have not already explained to you.
How about food stamps? Welfare? Unemployment? The CRA? It’s not as if there is a dearth of federal programs to choose from.
“…Too bad the Founding Fathers failed to write that into the constitution, …”
Well, they thought they had. You see, they wrote what the federal government is required to do. Then, using the belt-and-suspenders approach to make things even more clear, they added the 10th Amendment.
The first says “You (the federal government) HAVE to do this…”
And then they said “And you CAN’T do anything else!”
So if acts of charity are not part of the enumerated duties of the federal government, they are forbidden to the federal government.
Therefore, if someone wants the feds to do something, they first have to look to see if that ‘something’ is an enumerated duty. If it is not, then it is forbidden.
But even back then, some people wanted the government to exceed the enumerated duties, and when this happened, or when the topic came up, a couple of the FF were pretty explicit.
Remember, Madison pretty much wrote the Constitution, and although Jefferson was in France by that time he had had considerable influence on the ideas underlying the Constitution before he left and he stayed in constant contact with the framers as they struggled to make their meaning clear.
Most of their writings exist, so we can see what they thought by looking at their own words.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”
If you find these statements unclear, tell me, and we can talk about them till you understand.
Jefferson had his own comments:
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
“We are all doubtless bound to contribute a certain portion of our income to the support of charitable and other useful public institutions. But it is a part of our duty also to apply our contributions in the most effectual way we can to secure this object. The question then is whether this will not be better done by each of us appropriating our whole contribution to the institutions within our reach, under our own eye, and over which we can exercise some useful control? Or would it be better that each should divide the sum he can spare among all the institutions of his State or the United States? Reason and the interest of these institutions themselves, certainly decide in favor of the former practice.”
Now I happen to think these quotes illustrate very clearly the intent of two of the most prominent of the Founding Fathers, regarding both the practice of asking the government to administer charity and the legal authority of the United Stated federal government to do so.
The United States Constitution has 4440 words. Why don’t you go through it and tell me how many of them are defined within the document? That might help with your befuddlement about not having public charity defined in the document.
Watson,
You are an ignorant SOB or a liar dependent but please do not try your lies on this blog. *********
You are held to the same standard of not using symbols for profanity. //Moderator
Rightlane said, “God is the giver and the taker of life. Thou shall not kill.”
So you believe the United States military should never kill anyone, right? Or for that matter, you do believe that the death penalty is wrong, correct? Just wondering if there’s any wiggle room in your statement.
watstooge
So you believe the United States military should never kill anyone, right? Or for that matter, you do believe that the death penalty is wrong, correct? Just wondering if there’s any wiggle room in your statement.
nice try, but no Ce Gar, murder and self defense are two entirely different things.
Society has the right to defend our selves from the likes of hitler, mao, etc.
states have the right to defend their citizens from mad men and
lunatics by removing them from our midst.
killing a baby in the womb is unjustifiable.
The state has the right to defend it’s citizens from
It is a typical Leftist ploy to take part of a statement out of context and then try to extrapolate it to an extreme. It is what they do when their goal is not to add to a discussion but merely to derail it.
The topic of when it is OK to kill someone is very complex. Even the most ardent anti-abortionist will agree that to kill someone in self defense is fine, and most agree that killing in the context of war is very different from killing on an individual basis.
The death penalty is more complex, with good people on both sides arguing for or against it.
Personally, I have no problem with the death penalty as appropriate justice for certain crimes, including treason. However, in a debate which tries to equate the killing of criminals with the killing of innocent though inconvenient children, I would gladly trade—–give up the death penalty in exchange for outlawing the killing of babies.
NeoClown and Little Amy, Rightlane was very clear and unequivocal about this. “God is the giver and the taker of life. Thou shall not kill.” What part of this is difficult for you to comprehend?
In any event, the question was for Rightlane, not for either of you. At least Little Amy admits, “The topic of when it is OK to kill someone is very complex.”
BTW, stupid little man–it is very clear. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” which tells us that God gave us (humans) freedom of choice. Free will.
If you haven’t figured this out as of yet–work on it.
Watson,
I was going to leave an actual response until you once again proved what a ****** idiot you are and decided it was not worth my effort.
Nimrod, look back through recent history (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) first and see the shenanigans required (stuffing the SCOTUS) to get it passed, look at HillaryCare and the legal recourse, and finally ObamaCare.
If you are still too dishonest or stupid to see the “requirements” to force a new policy on Americans that the Democrats use then I will never respond again because you are too stupid to understand.
Oh, wait ~ it is for our own good–yeah, right.
Same standards regarding profanity. //Moderator
db, this is the new age of eternal optimism here at B4V. So never, ever respond to me ever again. Thank you.
By the way, do you have any relatives (or are you yourself) a recipient of Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid?
Are you responding to a forced> policy by our government?
You know, in no options like the Federal Government workers have. I, as a citizen, am forced to partake–no options. That one.
Watty the mindless drone: “By the way, do you have any relatives (or are you yourself) a recipient of Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid?”
Again with your pathetic little “gotcha”? You still don’t know the difference of “volunteer” or “forced participation”. You just keep regurgitating dumbed down talking points.
If you are so concerned about death, then you should be concerned about a bureaucracy that gets to decide on “controlling costs” especially at the “end of life” health care (hospice) or expensive procedures in latter years.
Why do you keep jumping from point to point, especially when others have debunked your current one?
Case in point about “constitutionality”… You do realize that at one time the Supreme Court upheld slavery? Just because a stacked court says it is “constitutional” doesn’t make it so.
Try again mindless drone.
Retired Spook said, “This was NEVER more evident than during Bush 43′s first term when he attempted to generate bi-partisam support for reforming S.S. He invited Democrats to be part of the solution and said EVERYTHING was on the table. They told him to pound sand.” Yeah, those Republicans are SO willing to work with President Obama.
Actually, wattle, Republicans were quite pleased at being told their input would be considered in policy discussions. When they were told they could talk but no one would care, that they had to “sit in the back of the bus”, they found no reason to carry on a charade of cooperation.
But Republicans did not just stomp off in a huff. Rather they crafted bill after bill on their own, most of which were prevented by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi from ever reaching the floor for debate.
We have two consecutive administrations in which Republicans were told Dems absolutely would not work with them. In one the Executive Branch was held by a Republican, in one by a Democrat.
The Dems have redefined “cooperation” and “compromise” as “capitulation” and now whine because the other side would not just completely give in.
Yeah, those Republicans are SO willing to work with President Obama.
so now quotes from obama are moderated??
Evidently the term “no whining” is not understood. Moderator’s choice. //Moderator
UNBELIEVABLE……..
(whining) //Moderator
Yeah, those Republicans are SO willing to work with President Obama.
Obama proposed fixing Social Security and invited the Republicans to present their ideas? When?
Backdoor deals and stuffing it through ~ that must be the “bi-partisan committee” you are not talking about.
The truth is cold water in the face, many cant handle it…
there are HUGE differences between the left and the right that transcend simple philosophies and go much deeper than simple politics.
Introduction to “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” by Dinesh D’Souza
“there are HUGE differences between the left and the right that transcend simple philosophies and go much deeper than simple politics.”
I agree with this, to some degree. I would restate it to say “there are HUGE differences between the left and the right that ………….go much deeper than simple politics.” but this is just a semantic quibble valid only if you assume that unexamined opinions and biases are actually “philosophy”.
For an excellent view of this, I suggest Thomas Sowell’s Conflict of Vision” It gave me a lot of insight into why some people drift to the Left and some don’t, in a nonpolitical context.
All laws legislate morality … the question being; whose morality do you want legislated? So multiculturalism, as well as life, marriage, etc and their effects on society I think are worthy debate within the realm of conservative thought.
But they are NOT political. Politics is about how to govern the nation.
we are a nation of laws, politics is merely the vehicle to determine who is going to make, intemperate, and enforce those laws.
The two can not be separated.
neo, I can’t make sense of your comment.
We are a nation of laws. Laws are passed by going through our political system. Whoever controls the system controls the laws.
We have been protected by our Constitution, which was so well written that it prevents anyone from imposing certain kinds of laws which inhibit liberty and demands that other laws respect certain tenets laid down within its structure.
If we trust the Constitution we trust that under Constitutional governance our liberties will remain intact. Like it or not, those liberties include the freedom to think very differently from you. Like it or not, under Constitutional governance people with very different attitudes and even what you call morals all have equal liberty.
When you demand that a political movement to return the nation to more strict adherence to the Constitution, BUT ALSO to enforce your personal views on certain aspects of morality, you not only go against what the Constitution stands for, you practically ensure that its opponents will prevail, because your strident demands that to vote for Constitutional governance is contingent upon going along with you on everything else erodes our strength.
“we are a nation of laws, politics is merely the vehicle to determine who is going to make, intemperate, and enforce those laws.”
I suggest you rethink this. While there are natural laws, upon which our civil laws are founded, our laws are made by people who have been elected to do that very thing.
Politics is NOT “….merely the vehicle to determine who is going to make, intemperate (do you mean ‘interpret’?) and enforce those laws.”
That is simply wrong. The political system in charge is the source of our laws, which is why it is so important to elect people who understand that the scope of their authority is quite rigidly laid out in the Constitution. Otherwise we end up with laws that exceed the limitations placed on our legislators.
And yes, you CAN separate religious beliefs from civil law. There is no civil law about circumcision, eating kosher foods, abstaining from meat on Friday, covering the head in church, who can receive Catholic communion, worshiping on Saturday or Sunday or never, etc.
The Founding Fathers understood that while they, themselves, for the most part tended to be traditional Christians, and believed that a strong core of religious beliefs was necessary for morality, they were careful to avoid saying WHICH religious beliefs.
The Founding Fathers understood that while they, themselves, for the most part tended to be traditional Christians, and believed that a strong core of religious beliefs was necessary for morality, they were careful to avoid saying WHICH religious beliefs.
I think I was TRYING to say that but fell short.
I agree with that line of thought even for today’s politicians.
While I do not agree with Romneys Mormonism I believe him to be a good Godly man, as was the the idiot jimmah Carter,
Klintoon on the other hand was a sacrilegious pig.
I voted for Carter and will for Romney.
ams
neo, I can’t make sense of your comment.
I answered with a bit of wit about your fantastic writing abilities and my lack of them, and it was removed…….what is going on here?
jer
OUR country was founded on the Christian/Judeo belief and all of our early laws were based on those beliefs.
today?
lawlessness abides and evil men and women rule us.
And we can flap our hands at them and call them names, or we can move away from the strident rhetoric and into calmer waters, where we approach not those in charge but those who put them there because they either do not understand the nature of the POLITICAL choice they make or they are turned off by the shrill and rigid demand of so many on the Right that any POLITICAL decision has to be accompanied by lockstep agreement with every social and societal opinion of some on the Right.
If you want the evil rulers displaced you have to find a way to break through the barriers of distrust of us and our motives that have been so successfully built up by a canny Left. And you don’t do that by layering all these religious and societal beliefs onto what should be a strictly political decision.
I find the hateful rhetoric is coming 90% from the left accompanied with violence.
I merely trying to state those rooted in firm religious beliefs have a different standard than those void of any thought of an afterlife or supreme being that one will ultimately answer to. The cult of islam is one stand out.
again POLITICS is merely the vehicle to move people to which side they are on.
I happen to believe there is good and evil people, to me there is a scale to weigh those beliefs and that carries over into POLITICS.
However I do not want a religious state like sharia and islam, or one with similar standings to Christianity.
Little Amy said, “And we can flap our hands at them and call them names, or we can move away from the strident rhetoric and into calmer waters.”
Meanwhile, she attempts to categorize us as coming from different “systems” in her attempt to portray her fellow Americans as not American at all. I’m not sure if your hands are still flapping, but you’re still name calling!
wattle, it’s not my fault you are so politically illiterate that you don’t even understand the concept of political systems. I guess it’s just easier to declare that they don’t exist.
So what is your understanding of why we have two parties? Do you really believe that they represent the same political philosophy?
You do illustrate, albeit inadvertently, the basis for your clueless meanderings. It’s because you are clueless. You not only do not understand the system you support through your attacks on its opposing system, you don’t even understand that there ARE systems..
You seem to think that everyone just flails around in blind opposition to others because of emotion.
Well, that’s an interesting if not surprising portrait of you, but it does nothing to offset the realities of politics.
Oh, and quit lying. I have never said that people who subscribe to the Leftist system of government are “…not American at all…”
Little Amy said, “I have never said that people who subscribe to the Leftist system of government are “…not American at all…””
You are rarely that direct even with your verbosity.
In other words, you lied.
Neo,
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
George Orwell
In other words, telling the truth is the new “hate speech.”
You did good, bro.
The Constitution, the law of America, and all laws not pertaining to the Constitution, ALL have a moral basis. And morals have derivative origins. So there is a Law-Giver.
Watson,
For once it would be nice if you could articulate your position rather than mocking others and taking statements out of context. For example regulation. We all agree on regulation and I have often cited my feeling as to the extent of that, but you never have.
Any chance you could expand on your positions rather than childishly restating others
Ama
This is an interesting article, please give me your thought on it……
What does “Judeo-Christian” mean?
http://focusonjerusalem.com/whatdoesjudeo-christianmean.html
Spook
tell me what you think….here
http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/
Cluster, I have addressed this in the past, including describing a whole range of activities I felt are righty regulated. If you have, I haven’t seen it. It gets tiresome to do it again simply because you demand it. In any event, I would say that government has a role in regulating the legitimate actives of its citizens, and apparently you do, too. Regulating as opposed to prohibiting. An example of the latter would be laws making murder a crime. Murder is not a legitimate activity, and citizens are prohibited from murdering another. Regulation, in contrast, has to do with legitimate activities, such as the production of food or power. Perhaps the difference is a fine line. Producing power is a legitimate activity, but most people would agree that poisoning the community’s drinking water in the process is not acceptable. You could argue that poisoning the drinking water should be prohibited and therefore, no regulation is necessary: If the perpetrator is caught, prosecute him for his crime. But it’s not that simple. It’s difficult to determine who is polluting what without some form of regulation. Further, there are times in which the community’s interests and well-being supersede–or at least conflict with–the free market rights of an individual or business, and regulation is necessary to balance the interests of both. The same is true for an individual’s rights, which may be unprotected in an entirely free market system.
Since you agree that “some industries need more regulation than others,” it gets down to a matter of degree. However, many of your fellow conservatives rant about regulation as though there shouldn’t be any at all. I think they are lying, or being hypocritical at best. Which then leads to mocking.
Watson,
I honestly can’t think of a single conservative here that would advocate for no regulations, but that is a too often held belief amongst a lot of liberals. It’s impossible to go much further with this conversation without a detailed list of the current regulations, but in your opinion, would you think that there are currently too many regulations that duplicate each other and that there’s a real need to evaluate and stream line? Or do you thank that there are just the right amount, or possibly too little?
In my opinion, we are in serious need of evaluation and stream lining.
Cluster,
Wattle actually has something of a salient thought in that post. (Until he decided to create his “many of your fellow conservatives” straw man)
He also conflates regulation with enforcement; “It’s difficult to determine who is polluting what without some form of regulation.” Here is where the disconnect between liberal and Democrat begins. Democrats in constant search of power believe more regulation, more laws, more control equals greater compliance. We need more “gun laws” despite the fact that it is enforcement of existing laws that are suspect. Liberals believe there is too much central control over the individual and not enough over society. Liberals want polluters punished; Democrats want more rules to define more businesses as polluters.
Cluster, from what I see here and elsewhere, the conservative position seems to be that if only it weren’t for all those “job-killing” regulations, American businesses would flourish. I think that’s simplistic. Nobody really likes to be regulated. Unfortunately, a certain amount of it is simply necessary, in both our opinions. I actually don’t claim to know whether there is too much, too little, or just the right amount. Can you point me to some objective analysis that indicates that there is too much? (And I don’t mean one that identifies one or two. I mean an overall analysis.)
I think you can look at regulations on a case by case basis and find some that are absurd and some that most of us would agree are right and proper. I just don’t think over-regulation is the BIG problem conservative rhetoric make it out to be, that’s all.
Yes wattie, we on the Right are for eliminating those “job killing regulations”. What your Straw Man neglected to tell you is that not all “regulations” are “job killing”.
Stick to that which we’ve expressed here and address those issues instead of making up issues and ascribing them to us.
I clearly stated below my opinion of government intervention and the line I am willing to hold. Have you done the same?
How much is too much? How much government is over reach and how much is tolerable? Try taking apposition. We’d love to READ That!
Count said, “Yes wattie, we on the Right are for eliminating those “job killing regulations”. What your Straw Man neglected to tell you is that not all “regulations” are “job killing”.”
Yes, I know. Maybe you should tell your man, Mitt Romney. One of his favorite phrases is “President Romney begins repealing job-killing regulations that are costing the economy billions.”
Which ones?
http://www.therightscoop.com/allen-west-lists-onerous-job-killing-regulations-on-the-house-floor/
That’s great, but last I checked, Allen West isn’t running for president.
I’m not running for President either, what the hell’s your point?
NO WATSON — FOR ONCE in this lifetime PLEASE EXPOUND ON YOURS. Can you????
A rare weekend visit from the Count.
Cluster,
Thank you for the thought provoking post. We often discuss out ideologies (note: that’s plural for a reason) but not often enough our differences.
Like Spook I’m a fiscal conservative first and foremost. Social issues aren’t nearly as important to me as the financial nature of governance. I draw from Adam Smith’s morality of capitalism and from the Founding Fathers the morality of just governance. From Jefferson I don’t countenance the tyranny of the majority as much of my ideology is in the minority of opinion, and from Reagan I learned the value of traditional liberalism as a valuable countersense to conservative ideology.
Barry Goldwater was the first conservative voice I remember, but soon began to realize he was more Libertarian than a true conservative, even though I didn’t have a word to describe Goldwater’s ideology, I knew it was to invested in individual liberty at the expense of societal responsibility. Long before Rush Limbaugh borrowed the phrase for a populist book on Conservative-Lite, Goldwater said the conservative’s role to the Liberal agenda is to say I told you so. This is what prompted me to read Buckley, and I haven’t stopped studying the conservative mind since.
I am a Republican by necessity but not by ideology, as I don’t believe there is such a thing as a Republican ideology any more than there is a Democratic ideology. I have far more respect for Liberals who have a coherent ideology than Democrats who don’t know what an ideology is; Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman debate and present that which is opposed to my beliefs, but they are sincere and are driven by their ideology. They vote their conscience and I can respect that; they’re just wrong.
On issues I try to ask myself, what’s the worst that could happen? Then decide if that worst is worth the cost. Often that means using the historic as a guide and judging ideas based on outcomes. Keynes sounded like a great idea until it was tried, and then many realized the economic value was outweighed by the value of retaining power over the masses. There is some value to government intervention in guiding markets, but the logical outcome has always been too much power in the hands of the too little informed. Even Krugman has agreed many times while he’s busy disagreeing (with himself, mostly)
Many issues do not get to the”what’s the worst” scenario as they fail on the face. As an avid student of American history I understand what prompted the Founders’ was an inherent belief in the morality of the common man. Common men don’t have authority over masses of people so they’re not tempted to abuse the power they do have. The common man understands that it is to his advantage to deal fairly and to insure (as much as an individual can) that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed as this increases his chances at success. In commerce as in warfare, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. A business that “does right” by the community survives, a business that exploits, fails.
Government intervention in that simple equation has tipped the balance in favor of the exploiters and the immoral business practices. There is no longer any penalty for predatory businesses, and I don’t mean government oversight, I mean businesses are allowed, nay encouraged by well meaning regulations to seek ways to skirt morality to succeed. There is a place for society to set rules of business behavior, but we’ve taken those rules to extremes in pursuit of the socially conscience business model, and failed to provide even a modicum of consumer protection in doing so.
Like Jeremiah and like neo I believe our government is best meet with a firm belief in a Higher Power; in my opinion the proggies had best believe in our rights guaranteed by a Supreme Being otherwise there is no constraint to the greed of Man. Look at the G-dless governments for ample proof of this.
Sadly for us, the proggies that post here are not the antithesis of conservativism, as none have expressed an ideology other than counter whatever we express with reducio ad absurdum. They are Democrats, and as such they are for everything a Republican is against without logic without reason without thought.
And for the record; I’ve supported Romney for President for years now.
count
They are Democrats, and as such they are for everything a Republican is against without logic without reason without thought.
and we (conservatives) are like the 1939 Germans, We are being told that IF only we treat those pesky nazis with respect and tone down our rhetoric they will come over to our line of thinking after all we are ALL good Germans RIGHT????
what could possibly happen??…..
As my family was in Germany in the 1930s I can assure you the People weren’t encouraged to treat Nazis with respect; the group-think prevalent was to ignore them and like the strutting dressed-up clowns they were, no one would ever take them seriously.
By 1939 the die was cast and the average German was lip-deep in this $hit. No one in their right mind would speak of Nazis as being tolerated; only obeyed.
But, I do understand your point; to tolerate evil is to allow it to succeed. We, on the right should believe in the inherent morality of the liberal and the misguidedness of the average Democrat. The truly evil on the Left is still the small minority, and the large number of dumbed down masses fooled into following such a destructive ideology can be brought back to the light. Reagan did it, Churchill did it, Maggie did it, Pope John Paul II did it. We can do it.
Civility in discourse is a lofty goal, but sometimes we need to call the proggies her out for the nit-wits they are.
The truly evil on the Left is still the small minority, and the large number of dumbed down masses fooled into following such a destructive ideology can be brought back to the light.
that is correct but that can not be accomplished with out showing those lost donks what the radicals are doing and saying.
We can sing kum by ya all day long while they scream for our deaths……we have to resist and stand firm against the radical leftist loons or we WILL end up like Germany and in death camps the presidents friends, neighbor, business partner and the communist union thugs have warned us and given us violence in the streets allready.
Neo,
I don’t think Watson is a “radical Leftist Loon” because I don’t think he has a real Leftist ideology. He’s (or she, I don’t know) a mind-numbed drone duped into believing that feelings are sacrosanct and Government’s are altruistic.
He sees “the Tree of Liberty … the blood of the martyrs” as literal and thinks that Democrats are for the “Little Guy” while Republicans are for “Big Business”. That’s the extent of his critical thinking ~ although if you look carefully at some of his posts, he has correctly ascribed the dangers of runaway liberalism, even if he doesn’t yet recognize it.
focus on the essential is so far from being an appeaser hoping to be liked they are not even in the same ballpark.
I could not care less if the true opposition likes us. What I care about is distilling the POLITICAL message of Conservatism to make it understandable to people who have never thought about things like this before, and I find the clutter of hyper-emotional insistence on slapping on all sorts of personal biases and prejudices and religious beliefs just overcomes the POLITICAL message.
Thank you Count. And I have to say that every poster here has really made some great comments, even Watson. Threads that provoke thought and insight are so much more fun than ones that end up in the usual food fights that happen far too often. I know Mark and Spook have put up threads such as this before, but my hope is to see them more often. I might be an eternal optimist but I would like to think that more threads like this will help educate some of the “unexamined liberals” as Amazona refers to them as.
Cluster,
Keep up the good work.
Just like where you are, its triple digit here, that’s what is keeping me indoors and close to the computer. I’ve got a Guinness Black Lager and a shot of Linea Aquavit to hold the heat at bay. Hope you made it to the links this weekend before the oppressive heat drove you indoors as well.
rain here 😦
had to leave the Horse in the barn.
Ah, what I wouldn’t give for some Sweet Summer Rain!
You know, Cluster, you are about the only one here who does not instantly refer to those who may disagree with you by some derogatory made-up name. RetiredSpook is pretty good, too. neocon1, Amazona and Count d’Haricots, not very good.
I truly think the tone of B4V is established by the article authors and the moderators, not the “forkers” or “proggies” or whatever else you choose to call them. So in the spirit of eternal optimism, I will reset the name-calling and snarkiness in the hopes of the same in return.
Oh STOP wattie, you’re going to make me cry!
“forkers” or “proggies”
forkers = Dis Brimstone Daily Pitchfork blog
proggies = progressive’s
now now count, put your head on my shoulder (pats on back) sniff sniff you will be OK big guy.
Neo’s softer side shines through.
Count said, “Oh STOP wattie, you’re going to make me cry!”
Thank you. I feel better for it.
neocon1 (see?) said, “forkers = Dis Brimstone Daily Pitchfork blog.”
Thanks. I never knew where that one came from.
Count,
I actually am taking some R&R here in Vegas. Not many people come here for R&R, but the resorts here are made to just unwind. After two weeks of 115+ in Phoenix, going anywhere sounded good.
Watson,
Thanks. I enjoy the debate with you.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the biological father of our President,
was a bureaucrat in the communist government of Kenya back when the nation first declared its independence in the 1960’s. And while Kenya’s government was at that time moving towards pro-Western, free-market economic reforms, Obama staunchly opposed such changes.
Thus, Mr. Obama published an academic paper in 1965, responding to his government colleagues who supported the westernization of Kenya. Entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Mr. Obama advised Kenya’s then-President Jomo Kenyatta against relying on private investors, private capital, and private property ownership, as a means of improving the country’s dreadful economy. Why was private capital and investment a problem? Because, Mr. Obama reasoned, private investors inevitably seek to earn “dividends” from their investments, and “turning a profit” was the gravest of all immoralities. Instead, Mr. Obama proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and a redistribution of that money, for the “collective good” of the nation.
“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income,” Mr. Obama wrote
The American Dream, or the Dreams of Obama’s Father?
Get Dinesh D’Souza’s New Book FREE!
You think President Obama is avoiding the subject of the economy?
Think again.
http://townhall.com/columnists/austinhill/2012/08/19/the_american_dream_or_the_dreams_of_obamas_father
neocon, your post makes more sense if you use the correct title of Obama’s book. It was not “Dreams of my Father” but “Dreams FROM My Father”—in other words, the dreams he has which he got from his father.
In this context the quotes from Obama Sr. and the info on his background are very important, as President Obama made a point of telling us, through the title of his book, that his dreams are dreams he got FROM his father.
You know, Cluster, you are about the only one here who does not instantly refer to those who may disagree with you by some derogatory made-up name.
I see no purpose in it — well, except for Bozo, and his name and avatar sort of invite ridicule. Watson, on the other hand, is a perfectly good name, and I honestly think you could contribute a lot to this blog if you’d start to discuss ideas. This country is at a crossroads, and the fork we take on November 6th is going to have ramifications for generations. I’m not naive enough to believe that Romney is the savior of the country, but I don’t want the future that Obama envisions for my daughters and their children and grandchildren. And I can tell you, they don’t want it either.
This is the first time I have been made aware that my nickname for watson had been the source of so much pain and anguish. As watson has invented a name for me, I guess I assumed he found this practice not only acceptable but even inviting.
However, now that I have been informed of the anguish caused by my frivolity, I will no longer bestow any such name on him, not wanting to be the source of any more tearful reactions to my posts.
Can I assume that if I refrain from nicknames, watson will also undergo a change in posting habits and start responding to questions posed to him?
??????????????????
Too funny that the author of “NeoClown and Little Amy” is whimpering about the big bad name-callers.
But fragile flowers of sensitivity require gentle treatment, in spite of their, well, spite—so “watson” it is.
Government intervention in that simple equation has tipped the balance in favor of the exploiters and the immoral business practices – Count
That is 100% correct. Great observation. When the government decides to pick the winners and losers, you can rest assure that the tax payer will lose every time.
Can you point me to some objective analysis that indicates that there is too much? (And I don’t mean one that identifies one or two. I mean an overall analysis. – Watson
Here’s a pretty good analysis I remember seeing earlier this year:
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-342SP
Yet, I don’t think anything has been done about it. Overlapping regulations is where I would start because I have a feeling we are wasting a hell of a lot money on doubling our efforts, and ineffectively I might add. This is why I like Romney. My hope is that he will act as a CEO and look to stream line and bring efficiencies back to government.
I own/manage a small construction company, I also had a home inspection business and I can tell you that government rules, regulations, fines, taxes, prison threats, are insane……..
Seems like a good place to start to me.
repeal Ubama care and FIRE 16,000 IRS agents with swat teams.
The $79 billion taxpayers paid to bailout this dinosaur might as well have been packaged as a gift and delivered to UAW headquarters.
They should enjoy the gift now because when the time comes to bail them out again, it is likely that a different president will be in office — one who will be willing to allow GM to fail.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/gm_headed_for_bankruptcy_-_again.html#ixzz242KM7K5a
I have often talked about the need for what I call legislative debridement—that is, the scraping away of the teetering pile of legislative band-aids that have been slapped onto problem laws, to “fix”them but actually just creating a new set of problems that have to be “fixed” with a new legislative band-aid.
The solution is to go back to the original law, repeal it if it has proved to be a bad law, revise it if is is important but flawed, get rid of the assortment of “fixes” that only complicated matters and created new problems of their own.
My hope is that Romney will be a reformer. Streamline the government and make social security and Medicare sustainable for future generations. Am I being too optimistic?
Cluster, I don’t think you are being too optimistic in hoping Romney will TRY to be a reformer, but I remember what happened when Bush 43 came up with such a rational approach to a gradual reform of SS and the shrill hysterical firestorm of abuse and opposition he ran into from the Left.
I think we will need a large margin of victory and both houses of Congress, coupled with a strong sense of resolve and a crew to keep the Rinos in line, to get a major series of reforms pushed through.
My first 100 days wish list would include:
Three year moratorium on all capital gains taxes
Permanent tax rates no higher than they are now, or the introduction of the Flat Tax—laid-off IRS workers can be assigned to investigate information given by registering aliens under new immigration laws
Three year slash of corporate tax rates with a permanent rate to follow that makes us competitive with other nations
Permanent amnesty on all real estate profits on property bought out of foreclosure or in short sales
Repeal of Obamacare
Repeal of the CRA and all subsequent laws that rest upon it
Revision of the Dream Act which will grant citizenship to foreigners who serve honorably in our military for at least four years, and eligibility for permanent residency for children brought here by their families contingent upon high school graduation and passing civics and English language exams
Passage of new laws making presence here without proper government approval a felony after the registration period is past.
Passage of a comprehensive immigration law regarding those already here, giving them three months to register and get temporary visas allowing them to stay till they have been investigated and approved.
Establishment of a seasonal worker program where foreigners can come here for seasonal work, no longer than six months, every year, but must return home for the rest of the year, for seasonal work only.
Establishment of a strong border control system.
Military intervention in areas along the border now controlled by drug cartels, clearing them out and returning them to US control and use.
Establishment of Congressional committees to formulate transition of some government agency programs to state control—Depts of Education and Agriculture and Energy, at the very least
Welfare reform reinstating work requirements and limited eligibility, with plans for transition to state control
Reinforcement of laws regarding treason, revealing of confidential documents, etc., with very strict penalties
Excerpt from an article at: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/finance/2011/September/Staggering-Cost-of-Regulations-Strangling-Economy-/
(emphasis mine)
“Regulations cost us $1.75 trillion every year. So this is a huge detriment to the economy that’s weak at the moment,” she explained.
That is estimated to cost every American household around $15,000. And with all the new regulations coming out this year, the cost countrywide will be more like $2.8 trillion.
That adds up to American employees working 77 days a year — two-and-a-half months — just to pay the cost of regulation. And there’s much more to come.
“We have 2,700 regulations in the pipes coming down,” Jones told CBN News.
This year alone, 50,000 pages of new regulations have been added to the Federal Register.
Almost 5,000 of those pages are aimed at new regulations on banks and other financial institutions.
One frustrated banker said it takes 20 percent more employees to deal with all the paperwork to comply with regulations than it does to work on loans.
In fact, the financial industry will have to spend almost 318,000 hours of staffers’ time to comply with just three new regulations in the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform bill.
***************************************
There are so many regulators now, if they were all combined into one private company, they’d be the third largest in the U.S. — as big as Ford, Boeing, Disney, and McDonald’s combined.
From the Heritage Foundation, here is a look at just a few of the thousands of federal regulations that are strangling America in red tape:
— The Dodd-Frank bill financial regulation will ultimately encompass some 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies.
— Most every sector of finance will be hit by rules that will inhibit product innovation and availability of credit.”
As I see it, in the here-and-now, “conservatism” involves three trains of thought: (a) fiscal issues; (b) moral issues, and; (c) defense issues. The problem is that both logically and historically, those three things haven’t necessarily gone together. Apparently, from what I’ve gleaned from the present post, that confusion is on-going. – Ricorun
How do these three issues not go together Rico? Logically or historically. Was it moral to depose Saddam Hussein and his boys, who were responsible for countless of senseless murders? I not only supported the moral side of that issue, I also supported the defense side and while I wish we would have used more Iraqi oil revenue to pay for the excursion, I pay a hell of a lot of taxes, and do support my money being spent for this cause.
Now please don’t devolve into moral relativism as you are famous for. Address the issue of Iraq in terms of the issues you cited and claimed are mutually exclusive. I do agree however, that those three issues are three foundations of conservative thought.
Now re: your embryo tirade. I really don’t get the gist of your post. So what if there are 1,000’s of embryos perishing? That doesn’t negate any conservatives pro life position. Maybe if you had more respect for the position, you would politely point that out and suggest that that would be a good area for pro lifers to focus their attention on, and help see to it that most embryos do fulfill their life. Being pro life is a never ending effort to protect the most basic right of them all, not failing to acknowledge that many unfortunately don’t get that right.
As I’m guessing the Custer may have been referring to me as a liberal, I will define my beliefs as to what I believe my Conservativism is:
1)Government: I believe the government is there only to protect our inalienable rights, that as individuals we should be free to prosper and with government interference we do not. That in so doing as individuals we seek not only for our self-interest but also to help and provide for others — that individual responsibility and desire to help others comes because of:
2)Moral and religious: Morality and Religiousness are required for a nation to prosper. That government and economics takes a back seat to religious conservatism, or rather morality and religious must come first for a conservative, else limited government and economic conservatism will NOT follow and the government will fail.
From those two you can easily deduce that:
1) The government must be strong militarily to protect our rights,
2) Laissez-faire economics is a must for individuals to do what that should
3) In order for the government to successfully function it must seek to uphold religious
or moral values.
And now for one more important point, which would be surprisingly liberal depending on what point in time you read this:
Private Property must be respected. Individuals must be allowed to acquire, dispense, or hold property without fear of the government, or others, seizing that property without just compensation.
Cluster, the idea that you are in favor of ‘Means Testing’ Social Security and Medicare, scares me. Then again, as a self-employed person, I am completely aware that 100% of my social security and medicare contributions are from my own pocket. They are mine. 50% of my employees’ social security and medicare contributions are their own, the rest was stolen from me by government mandate. To think that some day my “benefits” will be reduced….what kind of comment is that? It’s my money, my contribution. If I want to donate my excess to someone, I will.
On the economy: It is not the government’s job to force competition. The government’s rules are necessarily non-competitive, so your theory that as long as the govt. only makes sure everyone plays by the rules…….well, it’s very much short sided. Since you are referring to competition in this paragraph, you must be thinking about the anti-trust laws. Those laws are flawed tremendously in that they only regulate the suppliers of products. The retailers of those products are free to do each of the specified illegal activities that are listed in the anti-trust laws — and companies like Wal-Mart and Costco do just that. By playing by the rules retailers are able to force suppliers out of business because the retailers are allowed to do to the suppliers what the suppliers can’t legally do to them. (I guess this is more of a Burkian position as is the position on the supremacy of morality).
Abortion is murder, not manslaughter. Only in the case of the woman’s life being in danger does it seem like it would be considered, and if the baby has a great chance of survival, I would expect to know which way the sacrifice would be made. However, the law is the law and no lawmaker should even consider proposing a law that makes abortion in the first trimester and a half illegal, if they do, they should be thrown out of office for violating their constitutional oath.
Gay marriage: Again, we conservatives are on the wrong side of the constitution on this one, as such it will be left to the states. Barring a constitutional amendment, my preference would be for marriage to be ruled a religious practice and left to the churches, leaving the states to deal only with the contractual issues of the legal partnership of two individuals or the corporation of multiple individuals. The government should only issue regulated contracts and marriage left to the churches.
doug, I actually find myself in agreement with much of what you have to say. I do have a problem with this: “That government and economics takes a back seat to religious conservatism, or rather morality and religious must come first for a conservative, ”
I just don’t see how this can avoid the trap of theocracy, if you mean that morality and religion must come first for a conservative as a part of a conservative political platform.
I guess I just disagree with the whole statement. as I believe a firm commitment to the Constitution will create a national environment in which all religious belief and custom can flourish.
As someone who grew up as a Catholic, I look at the something like 1600 Protestant religions that have grown from their Catholic roots, and then I look at the schisms I have seen among these religions, and then I look at other belief systems which are not based on Christ as Savior but which are valid religions in their own right, and I simply do not see how government can possibly “take a back seat” to religion without picking one—which I believe goes against everything the Constitution stands for.
And if you look at the Constitution, you will see this philosophy in the 1st Amendment, which gives Constitutional protection to all religions. I simply do not see how this complies with your belief that “In order for the government to successfully function it must seek to uphold religious or moral values” because this puts the secular government in charge of determining WHICH religious values must be upheld, WHICH moral values it supports. I find this a very dangerous path to tread, and I suggest you would only approve of it if it were YOUR moral and religious values upheld by the government.
It is my opinion that the foundation of a nation must be its form of government. Period.
Upon that foundation can be built a moral and even religious civilization, but the strongest morality and religious belief cannot overcome bad governance.
A nation that is bound together is one that mostly shares a common moral fiber. Our nation of laws was formed by a group of individuals that for the most part shared common moral principles and mostly religious ones as well. The result? Could you argue with the result? Our constitution itself is perfect evidence of the fruit of strong moral and religious principles in leadership.
Two pillars: Personal self-interest, strong moral and religious character. Without the latter, then personal self-interest has no other base but of selfishness. With the latter then personal self-interest becomes much more, the williness to sacrifice for the better of mankind.
Nearly all true religions have similar moral principles, though their rules are different.
It is only the fake religions that have immoral compass points: those false religions of Environmentalism, Secularism, Deviancy Advocation……..many, many more. Those proponents have sought to create moral equivalency of their beliefs and in so doing have slowly turned the minds of people to believe that their moral beliefs are on par with those whose morals are formed through the belief in a higher being.
They are not.
doug, I agree with you. Perhaps I just have a more optimistic view of humanity than you do.
I look at the USSR, where religion was outlawed, banned, made illegal. And yet the human spirit craves a relationship with God, and people dared arrest and even the Siberian gulag to worship.
So I believe that a nation which respects religion, which does not denigrate it, which does not contribute to a sense of contempt for religion by using government funds to support things like a crucifix in a jar of urine or a painting of the Blessed Mother smeared with elephant dung, which merely takes the official position that religion is a vital and worthy aspect of our culture, will result in a nation where religion flourishes.
I think that is all any government can do, and SHOULD do, so I disagree that politics and economics should take a back seat to religion and morals, as I believe they are on different pages.
On one page is the determination that we will have a nation governed by our Constitution, which is a nation of personal liberty as well as economic liberty.
Capitalism is the economic expression of liberty, so a truly constitutional government will be open to economic expansion.
But then it is up to people to develop their own morality and religious beliefs, and government should play no greater role in that than to rigidly enforce basic laws. I just think that in a free society, one where religion is respected and not constantly ridiculed and denigrated, where people have the opportunity to create wealth (which is relative: it could mean a second house and a boat or just a safe place to live and enough food in the pantry) and a sense of physical and economic security, a nation where we can see the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn and crosses to mark our memories of the dead, without having those practices under attack, we will again become a nation where religion and morality play a greater role.
Amazona,
I think we just differ on cause and effect. You are saying that if we just follow the constitution then morality and religion would follow. I am just saying that if we were strong morally and religiously then we would be following the constitution.
It is the weakening of the moral and religious fiber that moves us further away from constitutional principles that were given to us by moral and religious men.
Your example of Russia is another good one, it was doomed to fail as it wasn’t created on strong moral and/or religious principles. It is why the backseat works. If there is a strong foundation of moral and/or religious principles to begin with, then the government and economic systems will succeed.
If there is a decay in that foundation, then the political and economic systems must neccessarily fail.
doug, you say: “You are saying that if we just follow the constitution then morality and religion would follow. I am just saying that if we were strong morally and religiously then we would be following the constitution.”
Yes, in a perfect world, this would be not only possible but true.
But we cannot enforce strong morality and religiosity, while we can enforce adherence to the Constitution by only electing officials who will be bound by it.
So of the two options only one is feasible, and only one can be achieved by focusing on it as the primary goal.
doug, you say: “If there is a strong foundation of moral and/or religious principles to begin with, then the government and economic systems will succeed.”
But this is completely dependent on WHICH moral and/or religious principles” are in play. This will determine which government and economic systems will succeed.
We can look to the Middle East to see nations with incredibly strong moral and religious principles forming the government and economic systems, yet this is not what we want for our own country.
When you depend primarily on moral and religious principles instead of objective political principles, you remain vulnerable to moral and religious principles contrary to your own and, in the case of Islam, fatal to your own. It the political system is dictated by moral and religious principles of the citizens, then the nation can easily end up being governed by Sharia law, as one example.
This is why the political framework has to be independent of religious doctrine and stand alone, while at the same time creating an umbrella of protection and freedom under which morality and religious freedom can operate.
Amazona, as to the middle east.
I would believe that if you looked through their eyes, they would say that they have been rather successful both politically and economically, that is until what would be in their view, liberal immorality invaded their system.
Again, that is a very good example of a morality and strong religious principles coming before the politics and economics – they are very much ultra-conservative just without the liberal european ideologies that our forefathers brought in to create our ‘conservatism’. The result for them can really be considered a great success from their viewpoint.
We don’t have to like what their conservative ideology brought to them through their morality and religion, but there is no questioning that to them it was successful for centuries longer than ours has been so far.
“It is my opinion that the foundation of a nation must be its form of government. Period.
Upon that foundation can be built a moral and even religious civilization, but the strongest morality and religious belief cannot overcome bad governance.”
Again, this is cause and effect. I don’t think people realize just how important a strong moral compass based on religious principles is to governing. You can look at our own congress and see what happens when they follow a weak moral compass – it is then when you get bad governance.
It isn’t the other way around, poor governance doesn’t lead to immorality…..immorality leads to poor governance.
And their success illustrates the danger of saying that our government must take a back seat to morality and religion, because their strong morality and religion do not translate into the kind of government we want here.
When you say that something as transient as morality and religion must be the foundation of government you hold government hostage to the controlling morality and religion of the day.
This is why we need to put our government philosophy first, regarding the blueprint for governing our nation, and not rest that blueprint on the shoulders of shifting definitions of morality and changes in the religion of the majority.
Our government must be stable, unaffected by the levels or degrees of morality or religion, and it must trust to the individuals to make those decisions.
“…poor governance doesn’t lead to immorality…..immorality leads to poor governance….”
However, we can control government, we can vote for the kind of government we want, and we can’t mandate morality.
We can spend all our time fretting that immorality leads to poor governance, and to some extent that might be right, though in the United States I would give far more credit to ignorance and gullibility than to immorality, but all this fretting does is distract us from our most pressing goal—which is to elect the people most likely to help nudge the nation back into a Constitutional model of government.
We need action, and we need action now. This means we need people dedicated to shifting the government of the United States back onto a Constitutional track. If some prefer to sit on the porch complaining that we should not have done this because the overall morality of the nation is not up to snuff, well, there is nothing we can do about that.
.
Amazona, I hear you but I don’t think we are communicating on cause and effect.
Our system of government that was built by our constitution was a result of very strong morals and religious convictions – just like the middle east. Our forefathers’ brought us our form of government.
Since that time our moral and religious convictions have been exponentially weakening causing us to stray from what the founders envisioned.
In order for our country to want to be run as the founders provided for in our constitution, we need to have the strong morality and religious convictions that they had – but we don’t.
The only way you would get to the theocracy that you fear is by having a strong moral and religious conviction that wasn’t part of their belief system. And if that was to happen (say Islamic principles) then it would take a vast majority of the American public to have those same moral and religious convictions for the constitution to change. Or am extremely WEAK moral and religious conviction in the courts or lawmaking bodies to allow the changes to occur extra-constitutionally.
And that’s all wonderful theoretical stuff that you can sit up late into the night discussing and discussing and then discussing some more.
But right now, in this place, at this time, we need to focus on the POLITICAL choices facing our country and often you sound as if you find the political choices immaterial until we manage to achieve some acceptable degree of morality and religiousness.
I assert that there are a vast number of moral and religious persuasions that can contribute to an overall atmosphere of morality and religious belief.
And I assert that without the secular political decision to vote for a Constitutional America none of it will save the nation.
It is all fine and good, airy-fairy, stardust and moonshine, etc. to declare that we must first have a religious and moral nation to have good governance, but I think that kind of attitude will destroy us, because it will put us in the position of having to have a religious and moral nation manage to develop under an oppressive government and then be faced with the obstacles of climbing back up the steep slope we conceded when we decided that the political decision could wait while we debate (and debate and debate and debate) all the myriad moral, religious and philosophical permutations of everything.
I’m as game as anyone for long dissertations on the meaning of life, the importance of morality, etc. That’s what long summer nights and good brandy were made for. But for the basis of immediate and urgent political decisions, not so much.
Let’s hope you can overcome your conviction that the moral shift has to come first long enough to pull the lever for Romney.
Sadly, I think the radical Left has pushed us to the point where your solution to the issue of gay marriage might be the only one. The problem is, then there will be pressure on churches to decree their religious rites as ‘marriage’ and those that do not will be branded as “hateful”.
And including “the corporation of multiple individuals” sounds like a recipe for complete degenerative disaster.
It is currently degenerative, brought about by the weakening of our moral and religious fiber.
hey mark cluster
question? if i stated the following……
-don’t want free healthcare….just affordable healthcare for all americans
-don’t want money for nothing…just want the opportunity for people to find a good job
-don’t expect elections to bring perfect results….just want my vote to count
-don’t expect businesses to be unprofitable…just need them out of regulatory and political process
-don’t want wealthiest americans to pay for everything…just want them to pay their share
curious…..would you call me a liberal or a conservative or a what?
I know this was not addressed to me, but I’m here and my coffee is still hot, so…..
-don’t want free healthcare….just affordable healthcare for all americans (sic)
If you agree that the best way, and the only constitutional way, to ensure this is to open up the insurance industry to free market competition, you are on your way to being a Conservative. If you think the government has the legal ability, much less capability, to make this happen, you are a Liberal
-don’t want money for nothing…just want the opportunity for people to find a good job
If you believe that equal opportunity is NOT the same as a guaranteed equal outcome, and if you agree that jobs are created in a healthy business environment, and if you agree that competition for jobs depends on acquiring good job skills, you might be a Conservative.
If you believe that it is the place of government to provide jobs, or to use its power to create jobs, you are a Liberal.
-don’t expect elections to bring perfect results….just want my vote to count
If you agree that all absentee ballots must be counted even if there is no statistical likelyhood they will change the outcome of an election, you sound like a Conservative. If you agree that voting must be confined only to citizens, and that people must confirm their identity with a photo ID to be able to vote, ditto. If you think the voting rolls must be purged of the names of illegal aliens, the dead, and those registered in more than one precinct, you are gaining Conservative cred.
-don’t expect businesses to be unprofitable…just need them out of regulatory and political process
If you agree that this also means keeping the government out of the business of business, except for the most basic and necessary regulations, you sound like a Conservative, assuming that you understand the right to access to government.
-don’t want wealthiest americans (sic) to pay for everything…just want them to pay their share
Here you must define “their share”. Is it relative to the use they make of government facilities, protections, roads and bridges, etc? Or is it merely an arbitrary figure? As the “wealthiest Americans” are now paying, depending on your definition of “wealthiest”, about 70% of all taxes paid, perhaps you are arguing for a reduction in their tax rate to distribute the costs of government more fairly.
I have a feeling that your last question nudges you toward the label of Liberal, if you intend it to imply that the “wealthiest Americans” are NOT already paying “their share”.
“-don’t want free healthcare….just affordable healthcare for all americans”
We all want that, liberals and conservatives, the question is what roll does the government or individuals have in making this happen.
“-don’t want money for nothing…just want the opportunity for people to find a good job”
That would be a liberal comment… a conservative wouldn’t limit people to seeking employment from others.
“-don’t expect elections to bring perfect results….just want my vote to count”
a conservative would want their vote to count equally compared to other legitimate votes.
“-don’t expect businesses to be unprofitable…just need them out of regulatory and political process”
This would be not only a liberal statement but rather a stupid belief. You can’t leavy businesses out of those processes without risking idiocy in laws and regulations.
“-don’t want wealthiest americans to pay for everything…just want them to pay their share”
That is a liberal statement, a conservative statement would be that the wealthy already pay a disproportionate share of taxes and we should be grateful that they are doing that.
To see what happens when Liberal governance takes over, read: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314102/there-no-california-victor-davis-hanson
An excerpt: “…………..as California’s population grew by 10 million from the mid-1980s to 2005, its number of Medicaid recipients increased by 7 million; one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients now reside in California ………….”
Another way of looking at this article is that it describes what happens when the middle class collapses. The article says there are “two radically different cultures and landscapes with little in common, the two equally dysfunctional in quite different ways.” There are. There is the small percentage of Californians who own nearly all of the wealth, and a huge number of Californians who are struggling to get by. The middle class helped to make California great, but is now disappearing.
In “the Never-Never Land of Apple, Facebook, Google, Hollywood, and the wine country,” people by and large own a large portion of the wealth of the state. Life is good. But for the rest of Californians, there isn’t much avenue to middle class status.
I see that when I drive around other states as well. I was surprised at the number of people in Oklahoma, for example, who receive government aid. In other states I see what could be called “living ghost towns,” where the bulk of small towns lay dormant, the buildings slowly being reclaimed by mother nature.
So I say a good article topic for Cluster would be the decline of the middle class. 🙂
“I say a good article topic for Cluster would be the decline of the middle class”
Be careful of what you wish for, as the article was about the devastating effect of Liberal governance on the California middle class.
I think you are mixing up cause and effect.
doug-zona
thanks for your input
it seems i could be somewhere between a conservative and a liberal????
don’t you call that an independent?
::))
No, that is NOT the definition of an “independent”.
You would qualify as one who has not taken the time or expended the effort to study and learn the underlying ideology of the two competing political systems, and/or one who simply lacks the backbone to make a choice.
The choice is not among the issues you listed. The choice is between a Constitutional government in which the federal government is restricted as to size, scope and power, with most of the power retained by the states, local authorities, or the people, and large and powerful central government unrestrained regarding growth or scope of power.
And there is no middle ground, as once you commit to governing according to our Constitution you cannot say “EXCEPT FOR……” and add programs or policies which are not part of the enumerated duties and which do not comply with the 10th Amendment.
If you want a government which can expand at will, and assume all sorts of duties and programs not enumerated in the Constitution, not limited in scope or power, then you are on the other side.
Keep in mind that once you have chosen your IDEOLOGY you can still support ISSUES that might cross ideological lines. That is, you can be a Constitutional Conservative and still want the government to pay for health care—it’s just that as a Constitutional Conservative you have to find a way to have this done through the states, as it is not an enumerated duty of the federal government. If you want unrestrained central authority you can still think people should show a photo ID to be able to vote, or you can find abortion to be an atrocity.
An “independent” would be a person with a clear choice made regarding ideology, but who chooses not to align himself with any political party.
You would qualify as a “ditherer”.
A rather squishy ditherer, IMHO.
I would think that bagni is a moderate, if not also an independent. Contrary to Amazona, I don’t see why an independent must also have made a “clear choice made regarding ideology.” It seems to me there could be several reasons one might be an independent, the primary one being dissatisfaction with both major political parties. That dissatisfaction can come regardless of whether one has made a clear choice regarding ideology. It could simply be disgust for the role of money in politics. I am registered “no party affiliation” or independent. I don’t know the percentage of voters registered as such, but I have seen statistics that indicate that 40% of voters consider themselves independents.
From polls I have seen, more than a third of voters consider themselves as moderates. To me, a moderate doesn’t frame every issue as an either-or question as Amazona typically does. (She said above there can be no middle ground.) A moderate rejects the extremes of both liberals or conservatives. (Actually, I think both liberalism and conservatism, as practiced in the United States, are moderate political ideologies.) It’s probably fair to say that the typical moderate recognizes and supports a role for the federal government in the “safety net,” for example, which is not the same as supporting socialism, which is not even something the majority of American liberals would support, despite the claims of the right.
An example of an extreme position of Amazona’s that I reject is her seeming contention that the powers of Congress, as enumerated in the constitution, do not include the 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.” The Tenth Amendment didn’t strike that out of the constitution.
I think Amazona’s (and RetiredSpook’s) dismissal of bagni as a “squishy ditherer” is merely meant to diminish or dismiss him or her. Or perhaps they think they can shame bagni into becoming an ideologue. I hardly think that will work.
Amazona said, “If you agree that the best way, and the only constitutional way, to ensure [affordable health care] is to open up the insurance industry to free market competition, you are on your way to being a Conservative. If you think the government has the legal ability, much less capability, to make this happen, you are a Liberal.”
This makes me wonder why Medicare was necessary in the first place. Was the free market not providing affordable health care to old people, hence the need for Medicare?
Medicare wasn’t necessary, there is your fallacy.
“Moderate” is a modifier. You are a moderate this or a moderate that but not just a moderate. It is like being a vanilla.
I said that independents are independents because they have chosen not to align themselves with either party. I suppose you could have made that decision and still not be able to choose between Constitutional government and big powerful government but if the idea is to try to straddle the two ideologies then the person is not an “independent” or a “moderate” but just squishy.
Do not lie. We keep telling you this and you keep ignoring us and you just keep lying.
I never said, hinted or implied that I do not believe “…the 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….” is one of the enumerated duties of the federal government.” I have no idea where this fantasy may have originated but it was not from anything I said.
“A moderate rejects the extremes of both liberals or conservatives. ”
And what, exactly, is an “extreme” of Conservatism? If the term is defined as the belief that the Constitution is the best way to govern the nation, then what is the “extreme” of that belief? And what is the “moderate” version of that belief?
If a Liberal/Progressive believes that government size, scope and power should not be restrained and that the central authority ought to be able to do whatever people want it to do, what is the extreme of this ideology? What is the moderate form?
If you are a Conservative, with the above-stated belief, can you claim to hold that belief if you then want to make exceptions to the Constitutional limitations on size, scope and power of the federal government? How far can this restraint be stretched before the ideology has to be redefined as favoring unrestrained federal growth and power? Do you have a formula for that? Why do you think there is a middle ground between the two?
Do you believe one can assert a belief in the Constitution and still want the federal government to exceed its Constitutional limitations and be consistent?
Why do you work so hard to avoid being placed on the Left end of the spectrum, when everything you say here is critical of everything that is or could possibly be claimed to be associated with Conservatism?
As for your amateur psychologist effort, no,no one was trying to “shame bagni into becoming an ideologue”. bagni clearly has no shame.
But please define “ideologue” and tell us if you find it to be a pejorative. Your tone kind of sounded like you think it is a bad thing.
“It’s probably fair to say that the typical moderate recognizes and supports a role for the federal government in the “safety net,” for example, which is not the same as supporting socialism, which is not even something the majority of American liberals would support, despite the claims of the right.”
And here we arrive at a truth. That is, that those who support the Left do so without wanting to be labeled as being on the Left, so they embrace the meaningless term of “moderate”.
Honest and thinking people realize that Conservatives also find a need for a “safety net”. They know this because as Conservatives they believe this, and/or because we have made it so clear so many thousands of times.
I see three general approaches to the “safety net” idea:
1. From a Constitutional Conservative position, which is that no form of charity lies within any of the enumerated duties of the federal government, so safety nets, as important as they are, must be in the purview of state or local government. Or the people.
2. To claim to believe the Constitution is the right way to govern the nation but to also want it stretched to provide this or that or the other even though none of these are included in the enumerated duties.
3. To simply and honestly admit to a belief that the Constitution is not the best way to govern the nation, and that the federal government should have the freedom to do what it wants.
I suggest that what is considered “moderate” is the second, which is the desire to have it both ways without making a choice. And, unfortunately, once the Constitution is breached, the person in favor of breaching it has made a choice whether he wants to admit it or not.
And this is where we find the Pseudo Liberal—the person who doesn’t agree with the Constitution’s restraints on the federal government, who has acquired or been presented with a laundry list of emotion-based prejudices and dislikes of what he has been told IS Conservatism, who has a gut instinct attraction to the third option but resists saying so out loud. Who wants to come to conservative blogs and hurl snot-nuggets and snipe and snarl, but who lacks what it takes to actually form a coherent political philosophy, define it, and defend it.
Doug said, “Medicare wasn’t necessary, there is your fallacy.”
Okay, so why was it enacted? And was the free market providing for the health care of the elderly at the time? I’m not playing games with you, Doug. Just asking the question. Feel free to point at some articles that would help explain the motivation behind Medicare.
Watson,
If I told you that only the rich can afford to buy homes because property is too expensive, does that mean that the federal-do-gooders should swoop in and guarantee houses for everyone under a federal program?
What about cars, same thing?
Just because the liberals saw an opportunity to expand a bloated government in order to get closer to their dream of socialism, doesn’t mean that they NEEDED to do it.
The idea that the only way for people 65 and older to have affordable healthcare is to have the government pay for the unaffordable healthcare is assinine.
I’ll let you in on a little secret: Healthcare in the form of insurance for those over 65 is unaffordable for the government as well. They didn’t solve a thing, it is still unaffordable only now the individual doesn’t see the total costs.
watson, if you are going to quote me, quote me accurately and in context. Otherwise you come across as dishonest.
You refer to what I said thusly: “…To me, a moderate doesn’t frame every issue as an either-or question as Amazona typically does. (She said above there can be no middle ground.)”
But what did I really say?
“And there is no middle ground, as once you commit to governing according to our Constitution you cannot say “EXCEPT FOR……” and add programs or policies which are not part of the enumerated duties and which do not comply with the 10th Amendment.”
Tsk tsk. You do realize that there comes a tipping point where the mere sight of your name on a post signals a series of lies, don’t you?
There comes a tipping point, there came a tipping point, potato potahto.
Doug said, “I’ll let you in on a little secret: Healthcare in the form of insurance for those over 65 is unaffordable for the government as well.”
Thanks, Doug. By “as well,” I take it to mean that healthcare is unaffordable for the government as well as the insurance industry. Which then means that the free market is unable to meet the health care needs of our elderly. So do you have a proposal to solve the problem? Or is the answer, like houses and cars, that only the rich can afford it? That is an answer, but not one that would be very popular. But I’m interested in how would you realistically address the problem.
Medicare was another step in the determination to both buy votes with government money and create another class of dependency.
Amazona said, ““Moderate” is a modifier. You are a moderate this or a moderate that but not just a moderate. It is like being a vanilla.” It is also a noun, as in “a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, especially in politics or religion.”
Amazona said, “I said that independents are independents because they have chosen not to align themselves with either party.”
No, you said, and I quote, “An ‘independent’ would be a person with a clear choice made regarding ideology, but who chooses not to align himself with any political party.” (My emphasis.)
As for my comment about the enumerated powers, it is because of your previously expressed views of the “general welfare” part of the enumerate powers that I made that comment. But feel free to explain your view more fully if you like.
As far as being to the left, I am certainly to the left of you. Most people are. I guess everyone to the left of you is a liberal.
“As for my comment about the enumerated powers, it is because of your previously expressed views of the “general welfare” part of the enumerate (sic) powers that I made that comment. But feel free to explain your view more fully if you like.”
Well, I guess I need to start by pointing out that what I really did was quote Founding Fathers on THEIR intent and definition of the General Welfare clause.
Too confusing? Too hard to nitpick and play silly semantic games?
Let’s take another look at Madison and Jefferson, shall we, now that you have been reminded that these are THEIR words……
““Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Now, some of us actually study the writings of the Founding Fathers to try to be accurate about what they intended when they said what they said. We tend to feel that contemporaneous explanations of terms by the people who actually wrote them have more import than interpretations two centuries later.
So, regarding Jefferson’s words, I happen to think that they are pretty clear. Congress does not have unlimited power to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. See, I tried to rephrase that to make it clearer but it was so simple and so clear, all I could do was change “has not” to “does not have”.
Madison’s comment is a little more complex, but give it a try, you might be able to figure it out.
First he says that the General Welfare has to be defined by the “powers connected with them”. Uh-oh—to figure this out you would have to actually READ the Constitution. Damn, don’t you just hate it when that happens?
He punches this up by stating that trying to take those two words (“general welfare”) in a “literal and unlimited sense” would change the Constitution into something that many proofs would show were simply not contemplated by its creators.
Now I read these words and I take them to mean that if the words “general welfare” are taken literally and considered to convey unlimited power, the result would NOT be the Constitution “contemplated by its creators”.
And he ALWAYS regarded them that way. That means this was his understanding when he wrote them into the Constitution.
Shifting into my own words here, I have read several explanations that the term “general welfare of the United States” refers to the general welfare of the Union, of the entity that is the government of the United States, and not the general welfare of its citizens.
But we are governed by the constitution, not what a Founding Father said or wrote in another document, including James Madison. Surely you agree with that. If the constitution intended “the general welfare” to mean something very specific, then why wasn’t it described in specific terms in the constitution?
If I recall my history correctly, the interpretation of the “general welfare” clause was subject to interpretation pretty much from the very beginning, and the broader view as primarily expressed by Alexander Hamilton of the Washington administration essentially won out.
We are supposed to be restrained by the enumerated powers. Thomas Jefferson said that when questioned about the meaning of the phrase.
Madison’s comments explain what was in his mind when he wrote the words of the Constitution.
There is nothing in the Constitution which specifically states that the general welfare refers to anything but the United States itself.
The term was questioned, and challenged. When it was challenged during the lifetimes of the writers, the challenges were answered with quite specific rejections of the challenges.”
“In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
But more specifically:
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”
James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,
There is no way that the opinion of the primary WRITER of the Constitution can be misunderstood, and he clearly stated that he ALWAYS had the opinion that the term “general welfare of the United States” was tightly held only to “..the detail of powers connected with them..”
In what way did the “broader view” win out? And what do you mean “won out”? Do you define getting away with distorting the Constitution as “winning out” and do you claim that once it has been distorted there should be no limits on further distortions?
Let me walk you through this.
First, Madison explains the intent of the framers, and the wording of the Constitution, when he says ““…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general.”
Then he says that using the general welfare clause to expand those federal powers would change the Constitution into something that is NOT “… a definite government, confined to specified objects.” He does so when he says “To take them (the words “general welfare”) in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
This is clearly a statement that an expansion of federal powers would violate the intentions of the Constitution.
Early on, people wanted to get their hands on the money available to the federal government. Sometimes they succeeded. But no number of successful subversions of the stated intent of the Constitution, or the detailed explanations of those intents, can justify doing it again and again.
And the goal of Constitutional Conservatives is to respect, honor, and preserve the original intent of the Constitution, as it was written, as its writers explained it at the time.
My recollection is that Andrew Hamilton–also a Founding Father and an author of the Federalist Papers–argued for a broader or more liberal interpretation of the “general welfare” clause. I don’t have his writings here, maybe you do.
Actually, it was in the Report on Manufactures, which he wrote in 1791, which begins:
I understand your view as a “Constitutional Conservative,” but it seems almost inevitable that this article of the constitution would require interpretation. The fact that you have to rely on sources outside of the constitution to explain the meaning of the constitution merely confirms that. If the authors intended the “general welfare” to mean something very specific, why weren’t they specific in the constitution, or amend it to make it unequivacol?
Wattie,
If you take the time to study Law, you’ll find that the terms and conditions of the Constitution are de rigueur for an 18th Century contract.
The Constitution was never intended as a comprehensive compendium of rights and responsibilities, nor was it intended to direct all human interaction under its jurisdiction. The language and construct predate the Magna Carta (1215) and has its roots in English Common Law. As such it follows the same theory of interpretation as those documents on which it was based; first go to plain language, then to precedent, then to the Framers’ Intent, and finally to English Common Law.
In the 18th Century, bias and ambiguities in the Law were treated as pleas for substantiation by way of the understanding process; a feature of common law was an absolute protection was afforded to interests in property, mostly land. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas as a prevailing concept which we understand today as torts. Contract Law was not a common practice as we know it which means the language of the Constitution was designed as everyone reading would draw the same conclusion; the voluminous detail we use today was unnecessary and considered an impediment to clarity.
Still, the application of the Constitution as understood by Judicial Review (Marbury v. Madison 1803) is that the plain language is a declarative statement; precedent is our interpretation of plain language and English Common Law is the genesis upon which the Founders’ drew the plain language.
Now, to Hamilton; the discussion of General Welfare vis-à-vis Hamilton’s Report on Manufacturers was his interpretation of Jefferson’s statement on the Bank of the United States; Hamilton’s references were not to the uses of revenues generated for “General Welfare” but to Congress’ ability to raise funds for General Welfare. That is the General Welfare Clause was not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
In 18th Century terms; as reasoned by several Courts notably Justice Story in 1833 (above), general welfare refers to the affectations of community at the federal level such a transportation stations, roads, ports, public storehouses and other necessities for conduction commerce and associating as a community. It was not intended as charity to groups or individuals but as necessities of communal living.
BTW, I stick with my perception that a true independent has made an ideological choice but doesn’t want to align himself with a party, and that someone who just can’t get off the bubble and decide, Small Government or Big Government, is what you call “moderate” and I call “squishy”.
Fine.
“I guess everyone to the left of you is a liberal.”
Everyone who has made a conscious choice of unrestrained federal size, scope and power is a Liberal.
Everyone who advocates for Liberal policies, and supports Liberals by attacking Conservatives and Conservatism, is what I call a Pseudo Liberals, someone ruled by negative emotions but who lacks the initiative to actually study and understand either political model much less make a decision between them.
People who have consciously chosen to support the Constitution are what I call Conservatives.
People who just can’t be bothered to learn about either system and make a choice, but who are emotion-driven and wishy washy and want a little of this and a little of that and just plaintively wonder why the two don’t just COMPROMISE!! are what are kindly called moderates and what I call squishy.