AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

James Morrison wrote:

Quote:

The DISCLOSE act itself was a blatant attempt by the Democratically controlled congress to, at least until the mid-terms, restrict large groups like corporations and T-Partiers from political advertisements that might influence those elections while allowing chosen favorites (like unions) that constitutional right.

parados wrote:

Quote:

Why tell the truth when a partisan lie suits your purposes much better JM.

Even the Weekly standard doesn't agree with you
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/misleading-rhetoric-disclose-act

Quote:

The bill, according to Politico, would "require corporations, labor unions, trade associations, and advocacy groups to publicly declare their role in TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign, including where the money is coming from to pay for such activities.

"Business doesn’t necessarily favor Republicans, but labor unions unequivocally favor Democrats. Unions contributed almost $75 million to candidates in the 2008 cycle, 93 percent of which went to Democrats, and spent a grand total of $450 million during the 2008 campaign. They have already contributed over $33 million to Democrats during the current cycle, and constitute 11 of CRS’s top 20 political heavy hitters.

This is relevant since a Democratic amendment inserted into the DISCLOSE Act Wednesday night by Rep. Robert Brady, a key proponent of labor unions, would effectively exempt labor unions from most provisions of the bill by exempting electioneering financed by regular dues of less than $50,000. Upset about a loophole Democrats from pro-gun states had carved out for the NRA, the liberal Sierra Club, Humane Society, and AARP were also exempted from the requirements.

Why wouldn't Congressman Johnson insist on the same disclosure requirements for these exempted groups? Because they would ensure more Democrats getting elected in American campaigns, both local, state, and federal."

“The bill would provide a clear and unfair advantage to unions while either shutting other organizations out of the election process or subjecting them to onerous reporting requirements that would not apply to unions,” said Collins spokesman Kevin Kelley. “Sen. Collins believes that it is ironic that a bill aimed at curtailing special interests in the election process provides so many carve-outs and exemptions that favor some grass-roots organizations over others. This, too, is simply unfair.”

As we noted in our amicus brief supporting Citizens United, the FEC now has regulations for 33 types of contributions and speech and 71 different types of speakers. Regardless of the abstract merit of the various arguments for and against limits on political contributions and spending, this very complexity raises serious concerns about whether the law can be enforced consistent with the First Amendment.

Those regulatory burdens often fall hardest not on large-scale players in the political world but on spontaneous grass-roots movements, upstart, low-budget campaigns, and unwitting volunteers. Violating the law by engaging in forbidden political speech can land you in a federal prison, a very un-American notion. The Disclose Act exacerbates many of these problems and is a blatant attempt by its sponsors to do indirectly, through excessively onerous regulatory requirements, what the Supreme Court told Congress it cannot do directly—restrict political speech.
Perhaps the most striking thing about the Disclose Act is that, while the Supreme Court overturned limits on spending by both corporations and unions, Disclose seeks to reimpose them only on corporations. (emphasis mine-JM)The FEC must constantly fight to overcome the perception that the law is merely a partisan tool of dominant political interests. Failure to maintain an evenhanded approach towards unions and corporations threatens public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system.

Emporer, you seem to be throwing up your hands and giving up, that its over. You do make some valid points, which tends to agree with what we have all heard, that when enough people learn that they can vote for handouts and be supported by the producers that are in the minority, then we are near the end of success as a country, which I tend to agree with. However, do not count me as one to think there is no chance at all of turning this thing around, I still hold out hope that there might be enough support to get some mature and responsible adults in office that would stick to their guns long enough to turn this thing around, to salvage the country for a while longer.

What it really boils down to is, what is the collective character of the people, of the culture, are there enough right thinking principled people left to vote for people that are committed to constitutional principles? I think this upcoming election will answer some of those questions for us. But even if there are not, it should not stop us that still believe in constitutional principles, to sound off and speak our mind, and to stand up for them.

No it wasn't funny. It was a lie based upon liberal stereotyping of conservatives, which is all hogwash.

There is no "liberal" establishment. There is a statist/fascist establishment. Conservatives are the real liberals. You should stop using the other sides doublespeak.

Sorry, but there is a liberal establishment, which coincides with the Statist and Fascist tendencies of late for the current administration and Congress. I am using the current definition of liberal, not some historical context. I am not using doublespeak. The current definition of liberal actually goes back a few decades, as Dwight D. Eisenhower referred to Democratic Party liberals over 45 years ago when he wrote an article in the Saturday Evening Post, titled "Why I am a Republican." If you are interested in reading that article, I reproduced it on this thread:
http://able2know.org/topic/144183-1

Don't forget the compliant liberal press demagoguing us is worth 15 points, also the blacks vote 90% Democrat no matter what because the Dems have been buying their votes in exchange for them staying on their plantation forever, and Obama and the Dems are trying to get the hispanics to behave like the black voters. It is not going to be an easy hill to climb. And one of the basic problems we have is the liberal establishment has screwed up the educational system almost beyond repair, causing many young people to be fairly clueless in regard to what the constitution actually says, and what foundational principles the country is based upon, starting with the most basic, the Declaration of Independence.

Liberal either means "tolerant of change" or "pro liberty"; left-wing statists are neither.

Quote:

Liberal either means "tolerant of change" or "pro liberty"; left-wing statists are neither.

What specific changes do you claim that modern Liberals are intolerant of?

Cycloptichorn

You think defending the status quo for 30 years makes one a conservative? Abortion has been illegal for pretty much the entirety of human history. Supporting it is a Liberal position.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You think defending the status quo for 30 years makes one a conservative? Abortion has been illegal for pretty much the entirety of human history. Supporting it is a Liberal position.

So being 'conservative' means wanting to change the situation that has existed for a longer time, and not the situation that exists that day?