AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

From Okie's site

And this doesn't even include the Journolist debacle where self described warriors of the left conspired to attack those of the right they felt troublesome as "racists".

Given, the above Journolist and the climategate e-mails no wonder Hillary Clinton could not help but demonstrate projection when she expressed her "vast right wing conspiracy" theory!

JM

The following is from FOX News:


okie must've missed this one. Shocking, I say!

Cicerone, okie's thoughts are far more frequently right than are yours and consequently matter far more often than yours.

Common practice can be changed and if changed to something illegal can be the basis of prosecution or impeachment.

PRESIDENT BARACH OBAMA HAS UNLAWFULLY:

(1) taken private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned it, and given it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

(2) exercised the authority of his office to take private property for public use in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees to the People that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,” and without “due process of law.”

(3) interfered with the management of private companies for the purpose of achieving government control of them, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

(4) interfered with the economic rights of the people by imposing unreasonable impairments in the fulfillment of their intended contractual obligations, and their ability to enter into such contracts.

(5) attempted to change our fundamental economic system from one governed by the rule of law to one governed by presidential dictate.

(6) signed an unconstitutional health care bill that is not authorized by any power of Congress enumerated in the Constitution, not even by a very expansive reading of the power to regulate commerce among the several states.

(7) signed an unconstitutional health care bill that violates the Tenth Amendment by requiring state governments to force their citizens to purchase medical insurance they do not want to purchase.

(8) signed an unconstitutional health care bill that violates the Ninth Amendment by forcing state governments to force their citizens to be denied rights that are retained by the people.

(9) used public money to purchase private companies.

(10) given our public money to a foreign state to finance their state-run oil company while refusing to allow us to develop our own oil resources.

(11) violated the balance of powers among the Congress, the Judiciary, and the Presidency by appointing, without congressional approval, so called Czars with far reaching powers who are accountable to no one but himself.

(12) funded his election campaign with foreign contributions.

(13) permitted the justice department to implement a policy to not prosecute any civil rights or voting rights violations if perpetrated by a black or blacks against a white or whites.

Therefore, Barack Obama should be impeached for violating the law, and despised for no longer complying with what had been "common practice."

ican, Quit with the platitudes; show me evidence. You can't.

Yes, I miss a few things. I am aware of the argument in favor of corporate donations, many maintaining it is a matter of free speech. However, I am a bit conflicted on this matter because it is not free speech of an individual, but free speech of an entity that is typically owned by numerous shareholders, and so how can a corporation pretend to speak for all of its shareholders in regard to a candidate or an issue? I see the same problem with unions and organizations like AARP. On the flip side, I see the problem with politicians or parties attacking an industry or corporation, and so the businesses should have a right to use their money to speak out against those politicians and parties and support those that are more industry and company friendly.

I am still weighing the pros and cons in regard to this issue, and have not made up my mind completely on it.

By the way, I took you off of my ignore list, so I hope you can keep your snide remarks to a minimum however.

I just posted evidence, Cicerone!

Give me your evidence that the 13 actions I posted that Obama has taken, are legal.

After you give me evidence of that, I'll consider giving you more evidence--evidence that each and every one of those 13 Obama actions are violations of the Law.

If you believe Obama has not taken any of those 13 actions I posted, then post that! After that, I'll consider giving you evidence that Obama has taken each of those actions.

okie wrote:

You are totally conflicted in your position; on the one hand, you support capitalism with a capital C (minimal regulations), but you complain that they are also the ones who disregards your thinking about campaign contributions.

Do you still know which side is left or right? How about up or down?

It may surprise you that I can see two sides to some issues and arguments, and so I am constantly collecting further information to solidify my actual position on particular issues. Most issues I am very settled as to where I stand on them, and in particular my basic philosophy is very settled, thank you. So I am not conflicted at all, but I am able to see two sides to an issue and occasionally shift my position on it to some extent. One of those issues is campaign contributions, as I see it as a tough issue to control and legislate perfectly.

In general, my philosophy is to allow as much contributions and political speech as is logical, but to require full disclosure as to who is behind it.

One of my problems with corporate donations to candidates is that shareholders are not necessarily being properly represented. For example, if I own stock in a company because I think they are a good sound company with growth potential in their particular industry, I don't want them contributing to Democrats. Same with AARP, if I belong to such a group that claims to provide services for old people, that should not be a political cause and they should not be taking my dues and giving it to Democrats and their causes. That is in fact why I will never join AARP, because they are lapdogs for liberals and Democrats.

However, if a company clearly states their political views as part of their company mission, then perhaps they can do their contributions while I can also decide to or not to buy their stock. So as you can see here, my position on this issue is still not totally settled.

It's not a matter of "being settled." It's about being right or wrong about one's opinion. You haven't responded to questions directed at you for opinions you made on a2k. We don't need to hear further okie opinions; we need to see reliable evidence to support what you say.

Your position on campaign contributions has absolutely no bearing; the USSC has decided the case, and approved contributions from corporations.

It doesn't matter what your personal "opinion" is; it's now legalized in the US.

Your argument holds no water. In other words, it's full of holes.

Your problems are not everybody else's problem. In the scheme of things, your problems are meaningless on this issue.

The Brief Bedford Reader has some helpful tips for most of our conservatives in general and for okie and ican in particular.

This is from Chapter One: Critical Reading, page 18:

"Passive, rote learning . . . won't do. You require techniques for comprehending what you encounter. But more: You need tools for discovering the meaning and intentions of an essay or case study or business letter or political message. You need ways to discriminate between the trustworthy and the not so and to apply what's valid in your own work and life."

Ah, your reading difficulties have surfaced again! I did not mention Bill Clinton. In fact, I suggested a short list of the most visible people who are likely to have been the authors of the WMD lie.

You two believe the same lies, the same crap and you spout it all back here. You are an unreliable narrator.

Since when are donations 'logical?' They are allowable or legal or the opposite, which is illegal. They may be considered parsimonious or generous. But, logical?!

All I'm asking for is for okie (and you) to provide credible evidence for your claims/opinions. Is that so difficult to do?

Talking to you guys is like riding on a merry-go-round; it never goes anyplace.
Evidence; you do know what that is?

I didnt say you did mention Bill Clinton, so its your reading comprehension that is in question.

I said that Bill Clinton, WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT, also believed that Iraq had WMD.
Remember, Iraq had already used WMD, so it was no stretch to believe that they had them.

So tell me, since Clinton, WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT, believed that Iraq had WMD, how did Bush and Cheney create the "lie" then?
They werent in office then, remember.

I was talking about the criminals of the bush administration, those followers of Leo Strauss who take the Straussian concept of lying to the great unwashed to the max.

You brought up Clinton. If you wanted to, there is a way to frame the situation so it makes sense but you like to play stupid games and I dislike games. Your response here is on your usual fifth grade level.

If indeed Bill Clinton believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he did not act upon that belief other than to occasionally fly a plane or two over the country. gwb created the current war in Iraq and sold it to this country based on claims that his henchmen made up out of the whole cloth.

If you want to talk apples and oranges, fine, but lock your door and talk to yourself.

Do you even read what you are posting?

You are saying that if 1 president lied, thats ok, but if another President lied then thats wrong.

If Clinton thought there was WMD in Iraq, and there wasnt, doesnt that make him a liar also?
And if he wasnt, then how can you reasonably argue that Bush lied about the same thing.

You like to say that Bush lied when we went into Iraq, but you do remember that Iraq had actually used WMD, first against the Iranians, then on their own people.
So tell me, if it was a lie that Iraq had WMD, what was it they used?

Not at all. I am limiting the discussion to the president who actually brought about a war. I spoke only of the bush administration which used television and its advisors as the cast of a "reality show" to persuade Congress and the public to follow it to war. The Clinton administration never did that.

One subject at a time.

You think you are being cute, but, you aren't. I should not have dignified your statement -- rather your game, because you make illogical statements just to bait people -- with a comment. This is the last comment I will make on your game.

But you seem to overlook the fact that Iraq DID have, and USED WMD.
Even if you are correct about Bush having lied, and I dont believe you are (I was there, remember), to say that Since the previous admin didnt do anything about it that somehow makes a difference is wrong.

Iraq did have WMD, they used them against their own people and against the Iranians, and there was no sure evidence that they would not use them again.
They threatened to use them during Desert Storm, and after the war they did keep saying that they had them.

Now, Iraq may have been lying about how many WMD they had, but you cannot say they didnt have them.

Was Bush wrong to go to war over it, I dont think so.
You think he lied, I dont.
So on that we will have to agree to disagree.
However, you cannot,in all honesty, say that Iraq did not have WMD.

Pff, they had some small chemical weapons that we sold them in the 1980's to use against Iran. They certainly did not have biological and nuclear weapons or delivery systems for either one, which is what was alleged by Bush's crew and the given reason for war.

Iraq had no significant WMD and practically none at all were found when we invaded.



Of course he was. The whole thing was a cock-up from start to finish and WMD were just an excuse for his warmongering. They wanted to remake the whole region, and failed.


It's not a question of opinion. He did lie, on several occasions, and on many others people in his cabinet lied and manipulated the media in order to provoke a war. These are facts, MM.



You can't in honesty say that they did have any worth going to war over; or any at all really, as we didn't find any when we invaded.

Cycloptichorn