AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Yes, words have meaning. I know that might be a surprise to you, ci.

You restrict government by restricting its ability to create laws that allow freedom. Freedom is not something tangible, bestowed like a gift from heaven. It has to be legalised , restricted. One mans freedom is another's chains. Making laws that control the ability of monopolies, laws that stop farmers poisoning wild life , laws that restrict the use of fire arms. We have to respect freedom and for those who dont we need legislation. Why should your founding fathers feel the need of any government, if it is as you say a tool for restricting freedom? I dont admire them as you do , I see them as just opportunists with self interest at heart. When slavery was acceptable, the exploitation of Indian lands a requirement, I cant see any reason to worship them, only accept they were men of historic importance. Communists , colonialists is there some kind of acceptability with one kind of history as opposed to the other?

MORE WARMING MADNESS: TREES AS SCAPEGOATS!
James Taranto notes the judgement of a panel hired to investigate U of East Anglia's scientist and their wayward e-mails in Thursdays edition of WSJ's Best of the Web:



JM

* http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575354933004508058.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Are you branching out or are you crapping a log?

More on Sharron Angle:

Once again, right-wing extremist Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle's response to one of the most horrific human crimes--incest--is to spout rosy platitudes at women and girls confronting very real and tragic situations.

Last week, we learned that Sharron Angle believes rape and incest are "part of God's plan." This week, Angle tritely advises rape victims to make lemonade out of their incestual lemons in response to a hypothetical situation posed by a conservative radio host. From the HuffingtonPost:

Stock: Let me bring up one other topic that I rarely talk about here, because it's one of those topics that's a lose-lose, but we've got to talk about it because it was brought up in your TV interview and that has to do with the issue of abortion, and whether or not abortion should be available in the case of rape or incest. The question to you at the time by the interviewer was that do you want the government to go and tell a 13 year-old child who has been raped by her father that she has to have that baby. And of course you responded 'I didn't say that I always say that I value life.' Where do you stand on the issue of abortion, a consensual abortion, from a person who is raped or is pregnant as a result of incest?
Angle: Well right now our law permits that. My own personal feelings and that is always what I express, my personal feeling is that we need to err on the side of life. There is a plan and a purpose, a value to every life no matter what it's location, age, gender or disability. So whenever we talk about government and government's role, government's role is to protect life and that's what our Founding Father said, that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Stock: What do you say then to a young girl, I am going to place it as he said it, when a young girl is raped by her father, let's say, and she is pregnant. How do you explain this to her in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby?

Angle: I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade. Well one girl in particular moved in with the adoptive parents of her child, and they both were adopted. Both of them grew up, one graduated from high school, the other had parents that loved her and she also graduated from high school. And I'll tell you the little girl who was born from that very poor situation came to me when she was 13 and said 'I know what you did thank you for saving my life.' So it is meaningful to me to err on the side of life.


Angle's defense for extremist stance on abortion rights? "Two wrongs don't make a right." Seriously.

Next week, Angle responds to criticism about her plans to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and the Department of Education? "One good turn deserves another." Oh wait, that can't be right--it's too compassionate.

I think an old Italian proverb speaks volumes when it comes to Sharron Angle: "Beware the women who has nothing to lose."

The above is from www.care2.com

What struck me is what angle really cares about is that people graduate from high school. Nothing else! Just that they graduate from the 12th grade. There is hope for America yet!

I've read one sentence of your response and that was enough.

From the looks of things on a2k, the majority of posters on these forums have a pretty good idea about word definitions that are consistent to most of us, but YOUR USE of words and definitions are foreign to most.

Now, okie, please identify for us any US president who has strictly followed the precepts of their party platform?

Alright, I feel masochistic.



That is not what I said. I was correcting your ever faulty logic.

I just don't understand how you have survived as long as you have. Most people as utterly at sea as you are generally do something fatal to themselves, like swallow a fork at dinner.

It is sad that they think Obama is a leftist.

Just as long as they have god on their side we have no reason to question their politics. I call it dualnuttery , one reinforces the other in its incredible grasp on logic. The improbable confirms their ignorance.

I'm trying to see if he ever heard of . . . we can guess he never read . . . Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc.

What a republican m.a.s.h.

Vote Green Lib

Not left enough for me but then his expression is tempered by the reality of American politics.

All violent protesters, left right and in between, who terrorize people should be tried under terrorism laws or their equivalent.

Please try to understand that my definition of the contemporary left-right spectrum defines the extreme left as consisting of those who advocate 100% government control of all that people do, while it defines the extreme right as consisting of those who advocate 0% government control of all that people do.

Coincidentally, those I define as leftists have had a history of mass murdering:
socialist have mass murdered thousands (e.g., Castro, Chavez);
fascists have mass murdered tens of thousands (e.g., Mussolini);
nazis have mass murdered millions (e.g., Hitler);
communists have mass murdered tens of millions (e.g., Stalin, Hirohito, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot).

Extremists on the right have mass murdered hundreds.

Left-Right Scale

LEFTISM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.[/white]RIGHTISM
communism nazism fascism socialism statism democratism conservatism libertarianism anarchism

He has no idea that the beast in us, needs civilising. Without good governance we are but nasty spoilt children.

The new ideology, when right is bad its left, when left is bad its left but when its right its right..O my o my ..nice big red letters for left and blue for right..you are such an inventive chappieeee.

You wrote,


Why are you holding any meaningful response of yours hostage to the above first question? This then gives me control over your free speech. Is this your intention? A suggestion to get the juices flowing: assume a) I know nothing about Rousseau or Hobbes except that they died long ago in a political atmosphere far, far away or b) That I am well schooled in any political thoughts (if that is what is behind your query, I simply don't know at this point) that they may have contributed to the world and post your thoughts accordingly.

I did not ask why my "cut and paste job is misguided". You characterized the piece in question as such and I merely asked you to expound on your reasons for that charactization to which you still have not endeavored.

Leaving aside the fact that your description of my post is not exactly conducive to begining a civil dicussion, did you read my thoughts (the first "cut and paste") about the need for another argument for individual rights other than that from divinity? Any thoughts ?

Again, I am interested in any thoughts you might have regarding the nature of man and of government. By all means feel free to bring your friends Rousseau and Hobbes along for the ride.

JM

I am not Realistic

you have to be a realist to recognise the fact..I'm not mad...