55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 03:18 pm
@talk72000,
Talk, this is a free country with liberty, perhaps that is news to you, but what that means is that it is primarily your responsibility to plan your life and work so that you provide good insurance for yourself and your family. As I said, perhaps that is news to you? Also, for those people that are simply too poor, we already have a government program to take care of them. If that program does not work and is giving inferior care, blame the government because they are the ones running it, okay. Do you instead wish to make all of us, including those of us that value liberty and have provided good insurance and excellent health care for us, do you now want all of us to have the same lousy poor health care insurance and care that the poor have had all along? Why dumb down everyone to please a few? That is like making everyone in the class flunk, just because a few have chosen not to work and have chosen to flunk and accept mediocrity. We should not all have to accept mediocrity and inferior health care just to please those that desire it.
talk72000
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 03:21 pm
@okie,
You forget that it is the Government job to care for the welfare of its citizens as mentioned in the US Constitution.

Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.


http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 03:52 pm
@talk72000,
Talk, that "general welfare" clause has been used by liberals to justify almost everything, but the rub is that the term does not mean what you claim it means. If it did, it would directly conflict with the entire concept of liberty, which is a cornerstone of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
talk72000
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 03:59 pm
@okie,
You do not understand English. Laughing Mr. Green Drunk
ican711nm
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 04:06 pm
Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The Constitution of the United States of America
Article I
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Definition of common
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=common&x=30&y=9
Definition of general
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=general&x=24&y=11
Definition of imposts
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
Definition of uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 04:16 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Talk, that "general welfare" clause has been used by liberals to justify almost everything, but the rub is that the term does not mean what you claim it means. If it did, it would directly conflict with the entire concept of liberty, which is a cornerstone of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I see, so the law has no meaning under your version of "liberty"?

The courts rule on meanings. The courts ruled that "general welfare" is basically anything that Congress says it is unless someone proves TO A COURT that it isn't covered.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 04:22 pm
@talk72000,
You do not understand English.
Definition of general
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=general&x=24&y=11
Main Entry: 1gen·er·al Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: jen()rl
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin generalis, from gener-, genus birth, race, class, kind + -alis -al -- more at KIN
1 : involving or belonging to the whole of a body, group, class, or type : applicable or relevant to the whole rather than to a limited part, group, or section <appearance of general decay> <a general change in temperature>
2 : involving or belonging to every member of a class, kind, or group : applicable to every one in the unit referred to : not exclusive or excluding <ladies, a general welcome from his grace salutes ye all -- Shakespeare> <those first assemblies were general, with all freemen bound to attend -- American Guide Series: Maryland>
3 a : applicable or pertinent to the majority of individuals involved : characteristic of the majority : PREVALENT, USUAL, WIDESPREAD <the general opinion> <a custom general in these areas> <the conflict became general> <we, the people of the United States, in order to ... promote the general welfare -- U.S. Constitution> b : concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects <general history>
4 : marked by broad overall character without being limited, modified, or checked by narrow precise considerations : concerned with main elements, major matters rather than limited details, or universals rather than particulars : approximate rather than strictly accurate <a general outline> <bearing a general resemblance to the original> <the rock formations of the state have a general northeast-southwest trend -- American Guide Series: New Hampshire>
5 : not confined by specialization or careful limitation : not limited to a particular class, type, or field : inclusive and manifesting or characterized by scope, diversity, or variety : BROAD, CATHOLIC, COMPREHENSIVE <a general drugstore> <a general surgeon>
6 : belonging to the common nature (as of a group of like individuals) : GENERIC <the general characteristics of a species> <long shaggy hair is general among bears>

The phrase, "the general welfare of the United States" does not refer to the welfare of a subset of Americans. It refers to all Americans. The welfare of all Americans is not served by stealing the wealth others earn. It is served by securing the right of Americans to retain the wealth they earn.

parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 04:35 pm
@ican711nm,
general is NOT defined by your opinion. It is defined by the court when it comes to the US Constitution.

If you feel they are not using it correctly then it is incumbent upon you to sue in order to show the court that. Failure to do that means "general welfare" means what congress says it means.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 04:47 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Talk, that "general welfare" clause has been used by liberals to justify almost everything, but the rub is that the term does not mean what you claim it means. If it did, it would directly conflict with the entire concept of liberty, which is a cornerstone of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.


Funny, the Supreme Court has disagreed with you several times when this very question has come up. Damned activists!

Cycloptichorn
talk72000
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 06:47 pm
@ican711nm,
You are just that subset of people who want to justify looting.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 07:38 pm
Good evening. So there is this poll out today by the Public Religion Research Institute regarding the Tea Party movement. ABC News, amongst others, ran stories on the findings. I have never heard of this organization, so I certainly am not claiming it is legitimate.
The Tea Party movement has tried very hard, and quite successfully in my mind, to focus on issues of smaller government, lower taxes, free enterprise and individual freedom.
The poll claims that:
80% of those who identify with the movement say they are Christians with 47% saying they are part of the "Christian conservative movement."
94% say they are white men.
50% say they are over the age of 50.
63% believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
82% oppose same-sex marriage.
80% have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin while 75% have an unfavorable view of President Obama.
60% said that Fox is their trusted source for news. That is twice as high, the article says, as the general populace.

I am not sure I believe this poll, supposedly funded by the Ford Foundation. But there it is.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 07:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Talk, that "general welfare" clause has been used by liberals to justify almost everything, but the rub is that the term does not mean what you claim it means. If it did, it would directly conflict with the entire concept of liberty, which is a cornerstone of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.


Funny, the Supreme Court has disagreed with you several times when this very question has come up. Damned activists!

Cycloptichorn

So, do you think that if a court agreed that wealth redistribution taken to the extreme would be merely fulfilling the intent of the constitution when the founders used the phrase containing "general welfare," so that the end result would be a communist or Marxist state, would that be constitutional and what the founders intended? After all, the intent of the constitution has to be what the Supreme Court says it is according to Parados, and if a president can appoint enough liberal justices to bring about that result, why not? I think in fact that there are many liberals that think Social Justice sought by Marxists is in fact the ultimate fulfillment of the general welfare.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 08:24 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Good evening. So there is this poll out today by the Public Religion Research Institute regarding the Tea Party movement. ABC News, amongst others, ran stories on the findings. I have never heard of this organization, so I certainly am not claiming it is legitimate.
The Tea Party movement has tried very hard, and quite successfully in my mind, to focus on issues of smaller government, lower taxes, free enterprise and individual freedom.
The poll claims that:
80% of those who identify with the movement say they are Christians with 47% saying they are part of the "Christian conservative movement."
94% say they are white men.
50% say they are over the age of 50.
63% believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
82% oppose same-sex marriage.
80% have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin while 75% have an unfavorable view of President Obama.
60% said that Fox is their trusted source for news. That is twice as high, the article says, as the general populace.

I am not sure I believe this poll, supposedly funded by the Ford Foundation. But there it is.

The poll makes sense. Why would it not? After all, Christians are probably more conservative than agnostics, atheists, Muslims, or other faiths. Also, older men probably approach politics using reason instead of emotion, and they are more likely to have experience to learn from, including running businesses or working their entire lives. Plus we know that blacks have been in the tank for Democrats for a very long time, no surprise there, and any conservative black is attacked unmercifully. Also, conservatives are likely to have moral standards, so sure they are going to oppose abortion and same sex marriage. Also no surprise with opinions about Palin, Obama, and Fox News, as Palin is conservative while Obama is a radical liberal Democrat, and Fox News provides a much more balanced presentation of news than some other networks that have been in the tank for Democrats a very long time. People that are informed, think as individuals, and actually follow the news while not swallowing the liberal group think, they know this.

I think the conservatives typically think like most Americans thought a few decades ago. The culture has degenerated for more than one reason, but one that I think is often overlooked is the fact that the entertainment industry has made a habit of making fun of and ridiculing moral standards and decency for a very long time now. After a few decades, it is bound to have its negative effects by eroding away the principles that all Americans once believed in.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 08:47 pm
@okie,
Quote:
After all, the intent of the constitution has to be what the Supreme Court says it is according to Parados, and if a president can appoint enough liberal justices to bring about that result, why not?

And who do you think is the final say in the interpretation of the Constitution okie? The Constitution says it is the courts.
If the people disagree with the courts, their only option is to amend the Constitution. They don't get to overrule the courts without an amendment.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 09:05 pm
@parados,
I am not a lawyer, parados, but I think there may be another way to change a ruling. I think another Supreme Court ruling can reverse an earlier decision, and I think that has probably happened some already in our history as a nation.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 09:12 pm
@okie,
Quote:
lso, for those people that are simply too poor, we already have a government program to take care of them.

Really?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 09:19 pm
@realjohnboy,
It is interesting that a "group" that claims to believe in individual freedom and smaller government would oppose abortion rights and same sex marriage. To oppose those very personal measures means that government must interfere with the private lives of its citizens. The Tea Totalitarians, therefore, contradict themselves.

I also accept that most Tea Totalitarians trust Fox.

As for having a favorable view of palin, well, that is difficult to understand. The woman strikes me as a hypocrite. That someone who seems to be a terrible mother should promote herself as a "Mama Grizzly" is ludicrous.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 09:21 pm
@realjohnboy,
I have a second thought about the poll. I am not surprised that most Tea Totalitarians are white men who are more than 50 years old. Please note that most TTs are Baby Boomers which demonstrates what a small percentage of the BBs were hippies. No wonder a good man is hard to find!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 09:29 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

It is interesting that a "group" that claims to believe in individual freedom and smaller government would oppose abortion rights and same sex marriage. To oppose those very personal measures means that government must interfere with the private lives of its citizens. The Tea Totalitarians, therefore, contradict themselves.

I also accept that most Tea Totalitarians trust Fox.

As for having a favorable view of palin, well, that is difficult to understand. The woman strikes me as a hypocrite. That someone who seems to be a terrible mother should promote herself as a "Mama Grizzly" is ludicrous.

Interesting, pom, do you see where your arguments for individual freedom might lead you? For example, are you in favor of incest also, or polygamy? How about legalization of all drugs, after all making any drug illegal is interfering with individual freedom, right? Those suggestions would be just a preliminary list.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2010 09:36 pm
@okie,
Quote:
Also, older men probably approach politics using reason instead of emotion,


I would laugh if that statement weren't so pathetic. Reason, from the American Right? Those so-called men are the same creeps who were frat boys in college and sexual bullies who drank too much. They just got older while refusing to grow up.

Quote:
conservatives are likely to have moral standards, so sure they are going to oppose abortion and same sex marriage


While I would rather not use the word moral myself, because I prefer both the word ethics and what it connotes, I have never found much that is "moral" about the American right.

Here is just one recent example of how "moral" those who oppose same sex marriage are:


http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activists-caught-being-gay/joanne?page=1&format=blogstyle_view&ref=nf

When I think of the anti-abortion people, I first remember the man who spat in my daughter's face when she was a college student temping at Brigham and Women's Hospital, in a cancer unit. He was an anti-abortion demonstrator.

I also think of how pushy conservative men were about sex during the 60s and 70s.

Then, I think of teenaged girls from families of drug addicts, becoming pregnant and raising their babies in less than laudable family situations. I think of a young woman I once worked with who became pregnant by a man she hated but had the child. Why anyone with reason would raise the child of a man she hated is beyond me.

Let's be realistic, there are many times when an abortion is the more ethical, the more moral choice.

Quote:
Obama is a radical liberal Democrat


He's a centrist at best.

Quote:
Fox News provides a much more balanced presentation of news than some other networks that have been in the tank for Democrats a very long time



As a former working journalist, I can tell you Fox is a pitiful organization. NPR is both intelligent and balanced. Very little of the mass media in anywhere but the right. The Democrats are a centrist to right party.

Quote:
I think the conservatives typically think like most Americans thought a few decades ago


Does that mean the conservatives want to lynch Negroes? That they want their women to be barefoot and pregnant because college is a waste of time for girls? Do they still want to kill commies or gooks or ragheads or whoever the current bad guys are?

Quote:
The culture has degenerated for more than one reason


The word you wanted was deteriorated, but, as I remember, you are the one that hates NY and Europe. So, how, for you has the "culture" deteriorated? You give little evidence of intellectualism, polish, learning, culture, thought, reason, etc.




 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 08/15/2025 at 07:11:35