AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I told you that you would be happily at home on the AARP forum where the right dominates.

I just looked for information on whether the AARP contributed to the Democrats (who are not leftists and not liberals) and the only "evidence" of such donations comes from blogs. In other words, people like you expressing their opinions. No facts are employed.

Then I found this statement:

AARP is an issues oriented organization. In other words we take positions on issues of importance to seniors but we are non-partisan and non-political in the sense that we do not endorse candidates, we do not give money to either candidates or to political parties. We don't endorse on a partisan basis. We simply take positions on issues both at the federal and at the state level which we feel reflect the needs and wishes of our members. Now obviously with as many members as we have, every single member would not necessarily line up with every position that AARP takes on on a social issue at the national level that's done through a national legislative council and at the state level it's done through an advocacy council that we have plus our executive council. So there's a lot of deliberation as we decide what approach we're going to take to various issues.

Nero is massagatto.

BTW, how many of you know people who describe themselves as socialists?

I know people who describe themselves that way and they find Ron Paul an attractive political figure.

A socialist I know has discussed mortgages with me. He owns a home because his wife wanted one. He believes that even "good banks" like two local small banks without affiliations with larger banking concerns are too loose in their lending habits. His grandparents had to put 30% down on their house while this man and his wife had a 5% downpayment.

I describe myself as a socialist, because I know that people will be social if the state doesn't steal from them.

Wall Street is stealing from everyone.

And our government helped them steal billions more.

BTW, if you did not see the Jon Stewart interview with Dick Armey from (I believe) Tuesday, 17 August 2010, you need to watch it. It is available on line, but, then, isn't everything?

Not to far back I brought up the subject of Fan and Fred and when I voiced an opinion that it would be best for America if we let them go the way of the Dodo Bird. I was then promptly excoriated as some sort of conservative Ideological meanie. Now we have another ideologue that would seem to agree with me, Barney Frank! Well not completely, but, it’s a step in the right direction. But, why not eliminate the government’s involvement more completely? Canada has a homeownership rate higher then the U.S. without Fans and Freds and no income tax subsidy for homeowners (mortgage deduction).

JM

I'm not sure that's true.

Cycloptichorn

Income tax evasion is a crime, talk. Fact is, if you know of someone evading taxes for sure, report them to the IRS. Maybe you should have reported Terry McAuliffe, campaign manager for Clinton, when he was insider trading Global Crossing to gain millions? He was never prosecuted by the way, and it was barely reported, what reporting was done was by the alternative media.

It depends upon what issue it is, Nero. Some things are constitutionally guaranteed, so that States should not have the right to take those things away from you.

The issue of illegal aliens is an issue of national security, but it is also an issue of states needing to protect themselves from invasion, so there needs to be a balance, and both federal and state need to enforce the laws that are on the books. I see no problem for example with the Arizona law, because it is not at all in conflict with national security, protecting our borders as a nation. In the case of cities providing safe haven, that is a violation of national illegal immigration laws, so those local ordinances are unconstitutional in my opinion. States should not be able to allow illegal violation of national borders, no way.

Gay marriage, thats a tough issue because if some states allow the practice, then other states are going to be pressured to recognize those marriages when people move around the country. Since marriage is a legal contract and binding as long as the contract is in force, I see a problem with some states going off on a tangent, I think all states need to be on the same page. In regard to other issues that are not lasting but are one time occurences, such as abortion, I think perhaps the states should have more autonomy to decide what should be legal. However even in the case of abortion, you have the issue of the guarantee of life and the pursuit of happiness in the Constitution for example, so perhaps this also becomes a federal issue.

I think you have named some issues that have national implications and constitutional implications, so that most of them need resolution on a national scale, but Nero, I believe that most regulations or ordinances should be determined as local as possible, state, county, and city. A good example would be drivers licenses and speed limits, those are state and local things, and there are a myriad of other things that fall into that category as well. Speed limits for example are not a constitutional issue, such that the constitution guarantees you to be able to do whatever you want in terms of driving, it does not enter the picture at all. In contrast, illegal immigration, gay marriage, and things like abortion are constitutional issues in my opinion and need to perhaps be resolved on a national scale. Perhaps gay marriage could be determined by state, but I think it is going to create a mountain of problems down the line if it happens, and perhaps already is.

okie wrote:

Your blurb misses the whole point; you're ignoring the US Constitution's mandate of "equal rights under our laws."

You are misinterpreting that, the 14th amendment does not require equal privileges. Government marriage is a privilege.

Not equal privileges; Equal Rights Under Our Laws."

Yes, precisely. The constitution does not require everyone receiving the same privileges, such as government marriage.

At present, marriage is a "privilege" restricted to heterosexuals, but it's a right denied to homosexuals in most states. However, there are several states that allows homosexual marriage.

What are you afraid of? Homosexual marriage impacts you personally in what ways?

Government marriage is not a right that could be "denied". Government marriage is a privilege, like getting unemployment benefits. You don't get unemployment benefits, but Mr. Jones does, does that violate the 14th amendment?



I'm fine with any kind of private marriage. I am telling you if marriage is a government privilege, then it is perfectly fine to restrict it to one man and one women.

What harm do you suffer from if they allowed homosexual marriage?

I'm fine with any kind of private marriage. I am telling you if marriage is a government privilege, then it is perfectly fine to restrict it to one man and one women.

So your conclusion is that the government has the right to discriminate against a group of Americans?