AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEFTIST LIBERALS (e.g., socialists, communists) AND RIGHTIST LIBERALS (e.g., conservatives, constitutional republicans):

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.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican, give it up! You never know what you are talking about - even when there are plenty of evidence.

Quote:

Bush signed the Patriot Act, which removes our civil liberties granted to us by the 4th Amendment.

Conservatives want to remove the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to those born in America.

Now, Conservatives and some flip-flopping non-cons want to choose who gets the rights granted to us by the 1st Amendment, because they don't want a Mosque in NYC near Ground Zero.

Why do Conservatives/Republicans hate the constitution? What is it about freedom that makes them so angry?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, That "law" does not allow for loans to be made to unqualified buyers. Please show us where it says such a thing?

Of course the law does not admit it, but that is essentially what the result of the law was. One example, redlining was not allowed, which means risky properties could not be excluded, which also translates into high risk buyers could not be excluded. Use your head, ci. What if the government passed a law in the 50's saying banks had to make loans to buy edsels, the notorious lemon in the car industry in the late 50's?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Conservatives want to remove the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to those born in America

It wouldnt be the first time an amendment is repealed.
I dont think conservatives want to remove the 14th amendment, so much as they want to amend the amendment.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Conservatives want to remove the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to those born in America

It wouldnt be the first time an amendment is repealed.
I dont think conservatives want to remove the 14th amendment, so much as they want to amend the amendment.

Well, a lot of them vocally disagree with you, because they sure use the word 'repeal' a lot for that one. But, how do you want to amend it?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, That "law" does not allow for loans to be made to unqualified buyers. Please show us where it says such a thing?

Of course the law does not admit it, but that is essentially what the result of the law was. One example, redlining was not allowed, which means risky properties could not be excluded, which also translates into high risk buyers could not be excluded. Use your head, ci. What if the government passed a law in the 50's saying banks had to make loans to buy edsels, the notorious lemon in the car industry in the late 50's?

Holy ****, here you are defending Redlining AGAIN, do you even know what the **** you are talking about? Profoundly embarrassing.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Would you buy a house in the slums, where properties are being boarded up, windows broken out, and where vandalism is rampant? Would you, cyclops? Answer the question.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The Patriot Act, does not remove our civil liberties granted to us by the 4th Amendment. It merely permits the federal government to tap international phone communications without a warrant, in order to detect terrorist plans to murder Americans. Americans murdered by terrorists lose their lives and all their other rights they are granted and/or not denied by the Constitution.

Conservatives do not want to remove the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to those born in America. Some conservatives want to amend the 14th amendment to deny citizenship to those born of illegal immigrants in America.

Those who don't want a Mosque in NYC near Ground Zero or do not want any religous icons on the Supreme Court, do not want to choose who gets the rights granted to us by the 1st Amendment. They merely want to discourage the building of a mosque near Ground Zero, and discourage the placing of religous icons on the Supreme Court.

Conservatives/Republicans do not hate the Constitution. They love the Constitution. It is Soros-Alinski gang members who hate the Constitution. They allege the Constitution is now obsolete. What is it about freedom that makes Soros-Alinski gang members so hateful of that which helps preserve freedom?

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

What is it about freedom that makes Soros-Alinski gang members so hateful of that which helps preserve freedom?

Just a guess, ican, but I think it might be the idea that our rights or freedom are endowed to us by God. The Soros - Alinski gang believe in crowning them kings over us instead. They think we need a king, and that we are incapable of taking care of ourselves in an atmosphere of individual responsibility, freedom, and liberty. Thats why most of the most notorious dictators in history were leftists.

I was reading last night some excerpts of what Thomas Paine wrote, and that was pretty much what he observed as well.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

It is GWB reckless war that has energized the extremists. He is also stoking the religious right in America. Nothing like adding fuel to the fire.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

One example, redlining was not allowed, which means risky properties could not be excluded, which also translates into high risk buyers could not be excluded.

That is utter nonsense okie....
Redlining was the practice of not accepting ANY properties in a zip code or other region. Outlawing redlining did not require that they give loans to ALL properties in that area. They just couldn't use the zip code as a criteria to not give out loans.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Would you buy a house in the slums, where properties are being boarded up, windows broken out, and where vandalism is rampant? Would you, cyclops? Answer the question.

It happens all the time okie. Perhaps you should look up "urban renewal."

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

If it was up to me, I would amend it this way.

Any person here in this country LEGALLY that gives birth, that child would be a US citizen.
If a person is here in this country ILLEGALLY, then any children born to them are NOT granted citizenship, and will face deportation with the parents.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

AS has been pointed out, that leads to a lot of questions that can't be answered at the time of birth. Parents would be required to provide paperwork proving they are either citizens or here legally. The question of being here legally is brought into question. Is someone that enters the country and then requests asylum here legally before they are granted that status? What if it takes 3 years for them to be granted legal status? Do you go back and grant citizenship to a 2 year old?

And to top it all off. Who pays for all this new bureaucracy to track newborns and their parents citizenship?

2 Replies

@parados,

We could use the new division of the IRS that will also be checking to ensure that everone buys a health insurance policy.

1 Reply

@parados,

We already have an agency in place to do that.
Its called ICE.
If you dont have a green card, a tourist visa, a valid social number, or a pending asylum request, you are here ILLEGALLY.

And yes, you do go back and grant citizenship.

the bureaucracy already exists.
Its the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

If ICE can tell which of 4 million babies parent's are illegal aliens and which are legal aliens and which are citizens then why can't they find and deport 10 million illegals?

ICE has difficulty finding and deporting 400,000 people per year and we are to expect they have the ability with present staff to check 8 million parents of newborns with no increase in cost or staffing?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Sure, the parents can just check off a box on their tax returns. That should work well, don't you think? After all, no illegals would possibly use a fake SS to pay taxes.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

If it was up to me, I would amend it this way.

Any person here in this country LEGALLY that gives birth, that child would be a US citizen.
If a person is here in this country ILLEGALLY, then any children born to them are NOT granted citizenship, and will face deportation with the parents.

But, we want their children to stay! Why wouldn't we? They will be Americans, culturally. Why throw away resources?

People are a strength, not weakness. We are not so overcrowded in this country that we don't need more hardworking people who just want to pay their taxes and get an education.. the smarter thing to do, instead of rejecting these people, is embrace them.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I agree.
The difference is I want them to come herre LEGALLY.
You dont seem to care if they are here LEGALLY or not.

I have always said and always will say that if they are here ILLEGALLY they do not get any of the benefits of this country.
If they choose to break the law they do not get rewarded for it.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know