AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Great diagram, ican, and worth repeating until the liberals get it, which might be an eternity. After looking at your diagram, ican, I wonder if you have considered depicting it as a circle? The reason I ask, if we went too far to the right and if the culture was allowed to sink into anarchy, the populace might demand and then obtain a dictator to preside over an ultra socialist or communist type of system. The conversion to communism from democratism or conservatism could conceivably happen by anarchy or revolution, or it can happen more gradually as the populace demands the government do more for them, and via the elective process whereby the dictator gains power by winning election. Examples might be Hugo Chavez, who was elected and now retains power by corrupt elections, or Castro who gained power by revolution. And right now, Obama is an example of a leftist gaining power by election and now working hard to change the country toward much more socialist policies that take our freedoms and liberty from us.

So perhaps the graph could be depicted as a circle, which would also agree with what is observed in history, wherein cultures evolve from tyranny to freedom, then again to socialism, bondage, and tyranny. Perhaps it is cyclical, more like a circle or wheel? Just an idea.

So, in your definition, the anti-Federalists were not among the FFs?



The staggering of elections does the opposite of "impede" legislation: In fact, it allows the business of government to continue.

Typical rightie: has no understanding of the impact of technology on society.

@ YoUR Service >O< Marsian

Yes, it is, says me. So there, I win!!!

For my reasoning see the post in question. You are invited to insert pointers to, or even relate directly, your reasoning.

JM

Via POM we see that JM said "Her advice, to the girls, was to look for alternatives, which they found on their own" This I (JM) said after reading Viselli's hit piece ( http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/sharron-angle/ ) on Sharon Angle posted by (but not authored by) POM, who now seems intent on complicity regarding Viselli's hit piece and the resultant loss of credibility.

POM responded: "What a disingenuous statement. Those girls did not find anything on their own. They were taken in by a family when neither was old enough to have a legal voice." But has not given us anything other than the following interview which, now, supports nada regarding Viselli's (and now POM's) scurrilous charges:



Of course none of, well, now, POM's exhortations prove my disingenuousness or, more importantly, Angles' supposedly uncaring "response to one of the most horrific human crimes--incest" or, as well, this implied Angle callousness: "Pregnant are you? Well then, Its time to make to make-- Lemonade!"

POM, condemn this hit piece for what it is or defend it with some rational reasoning.

JM

POM's response being:


Of course POM does not see fit to impose on us her/his "understanding of the impact of technology on society"! But then, perhaps, we can treat POM's A2K comments the same as the Obama administration has treated the Christmas Day Bomber, The Fort Hood shooter, the Times Square Bomber, the climate e-mail scandel, the Black Panther election day intimidation scandel, the Sestak and Romanoff job offers and ,next up, sworn testimony in Blago's trial...which is,simply,... "Nothing to see here, so, just move along!

Conservatives are Happy Warriors!

JM

I think POMMIES are wrong

You know, reading your posts is painful. They ramble without a beginning nor an end. Your syntax totally muddies any point you might attempt to make.

Conservatives may indeed be happy as warriors. They have many web sites which they use to propagate falsehoods and many talk radio shows to pummel the general public with their skewed beliefs.

However, a tad more literacy would be helpful if they want to be debated. Your statements are too muddy to read. The ability to write cogently begins with logic and I see no logic in your ramblings.

Okie, conservatism is where and as far right as I want the human race to be. While I agree that moving right to anarchism would ultimately lead left to a dictatorship of some kind, I think that adherence to the Declaration of Independence, our Constitutional Government, our Capitalist Economy, the Ten Commandments, and the Golden Rule by each subsequent generation will be adequate defense against such deadly transitioning to a LEFTISM dictatorship of any kind.

Furthermore, I think our current outrage with the Obama democrat left will be adequate evidence for future generations of the danger of tolerating the leadership of any future, sweet talking, lying, thieving fool and/or fraud.

wow, you could put that next to the definition of Politician

The Ten Commandments? Can you rightly say that the American right as a whole keeps the Ten Commandments? Does that mean you would exclude Jews, Muslims and adherents to other belief systems from the ranks of the right or would you force them to convert?

Many non-believers find hypocrisy is a common fault of many who profess a strong religious faith.

Would you agree that the proposed Texas GOP platform would move the Republicans of that state further to the left? Would you like to see the planks of that platform become law? Do you support policing the bedrooms of just citizens to guarantee they do not engage in oral sex? Do you want your children and grandchildren struck by their teacher? While "Thou shalt not spy on thy neighbors" and "Thou shall strike the children of others who displease thou" are, thankfully, not commandments, do you honestly want those provisions to become law?

Take Capitalism as an example. Many people with training in politics and economics -- which you do not have -- say that the US no longer is a capitalist nation. It is not a socialist nor a communist nation but it is oligarchy and is well on its way to becoming a plutocracy, if it is not already one. 83.33% of all households earn less than $99,999, with the national median at $44, 389. Less than 1.50% earn more than $250,000 but that group controls most of the wealth and holds it.

The top is almost entirely racially determined: 5,595,000 of those families earning in the top 5% have a white head of household; 366,000 are headed by an Asian, while only 236,000 families in that top 5% are headed by someone identifying as black or African-American. Hispanics do slightly better than blacks, with 269,000 families in the top ranks.

It is not getting better for people whose income is not at the top and that is not what capitalism should be about:
In 2001 the bottom 20% of U.S. households got 3.5% of the total income in the U.S.
The bottom 40% got 12.2%.
The bottom 60% got 26.8%.

The top 20% of households got over 50% of the total income.
The top 5% of households got 22.4% of the total income.
The top 1%, representing 2.8 million people, receive 12.9% of national income. This is as much as the 110 million people in the bottom 40 percent of the population.

"The U.S. household income distribution has been recorded every year since 1967. . .The general trend has been for a larger share of income to go to the very richest households (from about 17% in 1968 to about 22% in 2003), while the share going to the bottom (and, not shown in this figure, the middle) quintile(s) has gradually fallen. . .First, international trade has been increasing. Competition from imports has eliminated many industrial jobs that formerly fell in the middle of the U.S. income distribution. If middle-income industrial jobs are replaced by lower-income service and retail jobs, inequality will increase.

Second, new technologies such as computers and biotechnology have become more important, increasing the incomes of skilled workers who understand and use the new techniques and equipment, while leaving behind the less-skilled workers who remain in low-technology occupations.

Finally, unions have grown weaker and government policy has become markedly less supportive of unions and low-wage workers, while the compensation given to top executives and board members of large corporations has skyrocketed. According to studies done by Business Week, in 1980 chief executive officers (CEOs) of large U.S. corporations earned an average of 42 times the amount earned by the average hourly worker. In 1990, they earned 85 times as much. In 2000, they earned 531 times as much." -- The Encyclopedia of Earth

And what makes you think that?
I have always personally opposed abortion, and I am neither naive or "faith driven".
I oppose it because I think it is wrong, and is to often used simply as a form of birth control.
I also believe its wrong because it might deprive the father of the chance to raise his child himself.
Yes, I know the standard argument about how "its her body" and that she should have the right to choose", but not at the expense of the father being allowed to raise his child.

I have tried to analyse your opinion but its very difficult to get much substance from your reply. I will try, do you think any laws are necessary and why? I object to the unrestricted power of created corporate monopolies, I think they take away choice , freedom of free trade and they exploit. I believe we should have anti monopoly laws, do you?

Im sorry, I dont care what you think about the founding fathers, the evidence points to them requiring legal government and they exerted their will, they were not anarchists. Their main reason for breaking from Britain was to invade more Indian lands , it was Washington's main concern. Whats more he excluded every one except white settlers. Chinese , Indian, black had no part in the promised land. I find them self serving and only admired by those who benefited from their rebellion. Not all of them gave their slaves freedom and most just sold them. Not exactly for the slaves benefits just their reputation.

Who do I admire in historic terms? many, Churchill, the toll puddle martyrs, the common man who makes his weary way home every day.

I wish I could reply but there appears nothing to be answered.

FROM THE HEBREW BIBLE, BOOK OF EXODUS, CHAPTER 20
1 And God spoke all these words, saying:
2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
5 thou shall not bow down unto them , nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;
6 and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work;
10 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, nor thy wife, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid- servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates;
11 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery or fornication.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife,
nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour’s.

FROM THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, 2ND PARAGRAPH
WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, in that they are endowed by God with certain rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the people governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to secure these rights. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that people are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

FROM THE PREAMBLE OF
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.