AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Which of my descriptions of the difference between Leftist Liberals and Rightist Conservatives do you agree with, and which do you disagree with?

Leftist Liberals seek more government control over people's lives.
Rightist Conservatives seek more individual control over their own lives.

Leftist Liberals seek more equal distribution of wealth.
Rightist Conservatives seek more merit distribution of wealth.

Leftist Liberals seek more dependence by the needy on government charity.
Rightist Conservatives seek more dependence by the needy on private charity.

Leftist Liberals seek less dependence by the needy on private charity.
Rightist Conservatives seek less dependence by the needy on government charity.

Leftist Liberals rarely specify what Leftist Liberals think.
Rightist Conservatives regularly specify what Rightist Conservatives think.

Leftist Liberals regularly incorrectly claim what Rightist Conservatives think.
Rightist Conservatives regularly correctly claim what Leftist Liberals think.

Hmm...
On the other thread you call for the impeachment of Obama and then you want to argue that Conservatives don't seek more control of other people's lives?

I guess you forgot that Conservatives hate the US Constitution and try to undermine it when ever they don't get their way.

Conservatives do not want to control other people's lives; they just want to impeach the president (overturning the will of the people's votes), and deny equal rights to gays and lesbians.

That's not control, that's freedom for all Americans - didn't you know.

Huh?

Come on and cut the bunk, and answer my question!
Which of my descriptions of the difference between Leftist Liberals and Rightist Conservatives do you agree with, and which do you disagree with?

Leftist Liberals seek more government control over people's lives.
Rightist Conservatives seek more individual control over their own lives.

Leftist Liberals seek more equal distribution of wealth.
Rightist Conservatives seek more merit distribution of wealth.

Leftist Liberals seek more dependence by the needy on government charity.
Rightist Conservatives seek more dependence by the needy on private charity.

Leftist Liberals seek less dependence by the needy on private charity.
Rightist Conservatives seek less dependence by the needy on government charity.

Leftist Liberals rarely specify what Leftist Liberals think.
Rightist Conservatives regularly specify what Rightist Conservatives think.

Leftist Liberals regularly incorrectly claim what Rightist Conservatives think.
Rightist Conservatives regularly correctly claim what Leftist Liberals think.

You support both right and left testes of GWB.

This one is clearly BS ican..

Conservatives want to control who can get married (Want to prevent perhaps as many as 10% from doing so.)
Conservatives want to control where Mosques can be built (Want to control millions)
Conservatives want to control women's wombs. (50% of the US population are women)
Conservatives want to control who can immigrate.



One could easily argue that conservatives want MORE control over individuals lives.



Merit distribution? LOL.. That's a good one ican and complete hogwash on your part. Let me ask you ican, who merits more wealth: a firefighter that risks his life going into the WTC towers or the CEO of Enron? Give reasons to support your answer.




Complete hogwash. No one wants dependence on charity. We would all prefer that everyone be independent. The problem ican is you don't recognize that sometimes good people need a helping hand. Private charity often can't provide that charity simply because of the scope of the issue.
If you truly feel people should not get something from the government for nothing then I can only assume you railed against payments to 9/11 survivors.
But I know you didn't because you are hypocritical beyond belief.


Let's see if you are willing to answer who merits more wealth in my earlier question and judge this statement based on your answer or lack of an answer.

Ican, and the other Teapublicans, are looking forward to trickle down. And the Koches and other super-rich guys will be happy to trickle on them.

If a president has committed impeachable offences, he or she should be impeached, don't you agree, ci, or would you rather have openly corrupt criminals in office? By the way, was running Nixon out of office a case of overturning the peoples votes? Another thing, would Obama have a ghost of a chance of winning now in a new election? I doubt it seriously, ci.

"If" is a big word, okie. You still haven't provided any evidence of any impeachable offense by Obama.
All you have done is make statements that will not hold water in a court of law, but will certainly bring laughter in comic books.

They are grasping at straws.

It has been ican that has listed impeachable offenses here, ci. I frankly do not know if there are any that will bring enough votes in Congress. However, I think receiving campaign contributions from people like terrorist organization Hamas and other foreign sources, I believe that is clearly illegal, however that was done before he was inaugurated so it may not count, but at least the man should be punished according to the law as the law stipulates. Also, appointing openly Marxist folks to the administration may not be illegal, but it seems awfully marginal and subversive, ci.

ican has a full accounting of Obama's transgressions, I will let him list them again if he wants.

Personally, I think we are better off for Repubs to forget any thought of impeachment and instead concentrate on gaining the numbers in Congress with a monstrous landslide this fall, then block all of Obama's bad policies and overturn the really lousy legislation already passed such as Obamacare, and then sweep him out office in 2 more years with a good Republican candidate.

It actually could turn out that the Obama presidency will have been the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party in decades. This could be a bigger sweep than 1994, and I have heard that the Republicans are gaining more registrations while Democrats are losing. Obama could be the wake-up call that America so desparately needed.

Just a sample of stuff about illegal campaign contributions to Obama.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html

Whatever ican posts are garbage; it's thrown out junk and smells to high heaven.
I do read stuff that people post about ican's claims and counterclaims, but it's mostly stuff he's repeated a million times on a2k. No facts, no basis, no logic, with plenty of imagination and screwball stuff that should be outlawed by the conservatives.

Of course, they have no idea who the Koches are just as they have no idea who Leo Strauss was.

People tried for years to impeach george walker bush.

With which of the following claims do you agree and with which do you disagree?
Why?

The Constitution of the USA specifies both the powers it grants or delegates to the federal government, and some of the powers it specifies are not delegated to the federal government. Any power exercised by the federal government that the Constitution has not delegated to the federal government, or has specified not delegated to the federal government, is a power that is unlawful for the federal government to exercise.

The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to take private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned their property, and give their property to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned that property.

The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to transfer wealth from those who earned it to those who did not earn it.

The Constitution can only be lawfully changed by amending it according to the Constitution’s Article V. The Constitution cannot be lawfully changed by judicial, executive, or congressional decisions.

The fact that previous presidents have transferred wealth and the Supreme Court has not declared transfers of wealth unlawful, is not justification for the federal government continuing to transfer wealth.

I base these claimss on the 5th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and on the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to transfer wealth from those who earned it to those who did not earn it.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?fr=altavista&itag=ody&q=REASONS+FOR+IMPEACHING+BARACK+OBAMA+&kgs=0&kls=0

http://www.amorian.org/2009/09/06/the-big-list-of-reasons-to-impeach-barack-obama/

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.

You neglected to mention, Ican, that Obama is NOT A CITIZEN of the U.S.

But ican.. that list clearly shows that you don't know this


The US Constitution doesn't allow for impeachment for the items on your list.

That raises the continuing question ican. Why do you hate the US Constitution and work to undermine it?

Yes the Constitution does. All the items on my list are high crimes and misdemeaners in that they constitute violations of the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land."

Conservatives wish to control everything and they imagine that there is a clause somewhere in the Constitution that will allow them to do so.