AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@okie,

okie wrote:

I will need to have the time to dedicate to watching it, which I don't really have right now. But the idea is that if we explain where we sit, it thus helps explains where we stand on various issues, and why we bring our biases to those issues, and preconceived conclusions already in hand. Our life experience shapes all of this.

The nice thing about the message board, is that it records for posterity people's responses. And things grow on their own. Many threads are started by a poster who does not return to the thread for days or weeks.

If you can put in the time to tell your story, I will go second.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, That's a personal, unfounded, stupid opinion without any evidence.

You have now won the award for the dumbest poster on a2k as far as I'm concerned. Your nonsensical posts are not worth my time or effort. You are now on my Ignore list along with genoves.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I have an idea for a thread, and if I decide to do it, I will try it. It has to do with each poster offering their personal, total and honest explanation of their political viewpoints, and where they got them, hopefully in a courteous way. Alot of the opinions seen here are offered by people wherein we don't know where in the world those opinions are coming from. I am thinking of offering a challenge, if someone is a conservative, state it as such, if they are a liberal or even a Marxist, my challenge would be to say so, complete honesty, and why. What do you think?

I just wanted to add to this that I consider this to be an excellent idea for a thread. The problem with the Politics threads is that people often present a conclusion to a thought-process rather than the ideas behind their opinions, and then get stuck in the back-and-forth of ideological camp fights that often consist of a meaningless tit-for-tat rather than of an exchange of ideas.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:

You know, okie, I'd be interested in your opinion about the position of the Department of Justice - recently made publicly available - which declared that the President of the United States has the authority

(a) to deploy the US military within the United States, (b) directed at foreign nationals as well as American citizens, (c) and all of that unconstrained by any Constitutional limits, including those of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

What do you think about that?

I would have to look at the whys, wherefores, and the context of what you are talking about. It seems to me at first reading that something like that happened already - almost 150 years ago, oe, by somebody named Lincoln. Beyond that, I need to know what you are specifically talking about.

On the face of it, your answer seems to imply that, under certain circumstances, it would be okay for the President to do all of those things.

Which would mean that the President would have not only the authority to deploy the military within the United States, but could also, in violation of the Constitution, abolish freedom of the press, freedom of worship, freedom of speech as 1st Amendment rights. He could abolish private property rights and use deadly force against American citizens, and he could have citizens tried and punished without indictment or proper trial.

I'm not sure what those circumstances might be, but, particularly with Obama being President, I'd sure like to know under which circumstances you would be willing to grant him that kind of authority.

1 Reply

Interesting idea and proposition. However, I am not hopeful. Several times during the past few weeks I have tuned into this thread and considered posting something. However all the shouting, name-calling and invective disuaded me. People here only pretend to be arguing about facts and events, when in fact they are merely expounding on irreconcilable viewpoints and unstated assumptions about human nature, economics, history, and how things work. I can't think of a single instance in which a synthesis of any kind was reached among the disputants here - not even a cordial agreement to disagree about some underlying issue, while acknowledging the possibility that either or both of the disputants could be wrong.

Still - I wish you luck.

1 Reply

@old europe,

I would not give it to Obama, because I don't trust the man. Embedded into all of this, oe, is the inescapable factor of trust. Any form of government or law can be misused and abused. That is the reason we desparately need character and morality in a free society, for that society to be able to survive. Our founders said this many times and in many ways. If people would merely trust in the constitution and its principles, with good leadership, we could continue to do well. However, I don't think the public mood is going to allow that, unless events turn us around.

I do not have the answer, because I do not believe any law or any government is perfect, governments are like men, they come and go. We have had the rare privilege of living in the grandest of times here, that is my belief, under reasonably moral and upstanding leadership. I do not think that can last forever. Power corrupts, and now we see the mood of society turning toward collectivism, not a good sign, and so I think things are ripening toward a situation where unscrupulous leaders can and will abuse the positions of power.

But to the original question, the president does have extraordinary powers for certain situations, for national defence. I already referred to Lincoln, wherein he suspended certain rights for a time, and obviously he made war with the union military against fellow citizens, but in the end when the war was over, he did not abuse the power, he made sure the wounds were healed as best he could and return things to normal.

Bush, I totally trust, he was a good and decent man, a true American. Obama, I do not, not at all. I think Obama could be a very bad apple if events shake out in the wrong way. This has everything to do with his attitudes, politics, and personality. This is why presidential elections are so important, and why citizens cultural moods and morality are important. We tend to elect a mirror of ourselves. I happen to think some societies are sick, or portions of societies are sick, when they show up in droves to see a Michael Jackson performance, for example.

3 Replies

@okie,

I guess I'm even more of a pessimist about America than Okie, 'cause I think we're in a situation where unscrupulous leaders can and will abuse the positions of power right now and have been for my entire lifetime.

Quote:

I happen to think some societies are sick, or portions of societies are sick, when they show up in droves to see a Michael Jackson performance, for example.

Haha, that's a hell of a left turn right there at the end

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Do you consider all of us to be engaging in name calling and invective, George? Your post would almost suggest that.

I have earnestly hoped for some to join us on the thread who could put two thoughts together and actually discuss some concepts beyond grade school level. The only thing that keeps me coming back to A2K are those who can do that. Admittedly such people are difficult to find these days, and even if we do get a good discussion going, the trolls and name callers almost immediately show up to to ensure that nothing civil or reasoned will be allowed to happen.

I thought if perhaps enough thinking people could be persuaded to participate and ignore the schoolyard taunts, perhaps the trolls would feel uncomfortable enough to actually join the discussion or would leave.

Perhaps I am engaging in wishing for the impossible. Or perhaps you see me as the problem. I don't know. But I am discouraged.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I guess I'm even more of a pessimist about America than Okie, 'cause I think we're in a situation where unscrupulous leaders can and will abuse the positions of power right now and have been for my entire lifetime.

Cycloptichorn

That started long before you were born. You should consider reading Heroditus. Alternatively, you could study some of the actions of presidents Jefferson, Jackson and even Lincoln (and others, including Wilson and FDR).

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you consider all of us to be engaging in name calling and invective, George? Your post would almost suggest that.

I made no such judgement. I was simply disuaded by the obvious prospect of name-calling, invective, and stubborn incomprehension in response to whatever thoughts tempted me momentarily to post something. I got very weary of this stuff a few months ago and took a holiday from A2K just to get away from it. I have little desire to renew my acquaintance with that stuff now.

0 Replies

What has mystified me during the past few years, with liberals, is what is all the unhappiness about, that everything needs to be changed? I cannot think of a more grand time, a time of opportunity, freedom, freedom to do whatever, complain, but find something you enjoy to do, find some kind of work, have a family, what is there to complain about. I did not grow up with money, our family had very little when I was young, but we worked hard, all of our lives, but it wasn't torture, it was enjoyable. After all, what else would be better?

0 Replies

@okie,

The question is, what is abuse of power? Was Reagan's small, quick, and presumably effective invasion of Granada an abuse of power? Should a President act when he believes a threat is building and take care of it effectively and efficiently before it becomes a problem? Carter's stealth mini-invasion of Iran to rescue the hostages was another botched exercise for which he took much criticism, but had it worked, he would have been applauded as a hero. Clinton's invasion of Somalia, a botched exercise for humanitarian reasons, again could have turned out well. Did the fact that it didn't make it the wrong thing to do?

I trusted (and still trust) President Bush to do what he believed was the right thing for the country too, whether or not he competently pulled it off and, frankly, sometimes he didn't. But I never questioned his motives.

I don't know yet about Obama's motives yet--it may be too soon to tell--but my fear with him is not so much that I am sure he intends to do harm, but he lacks experience more than any of the others and his strong leftwing ideology could prompt him into doing some really screwy things.

I think that is why I started this thread to being to re-identify those values and principles that have kept America strong for our lifetime and what dangers those might be in now.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I agree with you, and that is why I tried to point out the importance of character. I also want to point out that leftist idealogies involving more collectivism and central planning, rather than leaving those issues with free market solutions as individuals, this naturally leads to more abuse of power, not only in instituting their policies but in preserving their control over society. Dictatorial personalities tend to gravitate toward these leftist idealogies, because it satisfies their natural desire for power.

Character also enters into the electorate. Without the proper character, society will tend to elect people like them, that have less character. Playing into this picture is the fact that more and more people will vote for their own gain, personally, rather than for a person that they believe will uphold the constitutional principles. It takes principles to stand for principles, uphold them, and vote for them. And now with Obama promising everything personally from health care to more rebates, to punish the rich, and all of that, lots of people are saying, yea yea yea, thats good for me.

2 Replies

@okie,

I'm trying to make sense of that post, but, to me, it seems to contain quite a few contradictions.

For example, you say that "factor of trust" is important. Then you go on and say that trust in the Constitution and what it stands for are important. I'm following you so far. The Constitution, for very good reasons, curtails the power of the President (and of the respective branches of government). Mostly, it would seem to me, in order to prevent one branch from gaining too much power over the other branches, thereby corrupting the system and ultimately moving from democracy to tyranny.

Then, however, you go on to declare that it's all about trust in the person of the President. That seems to imply that a certain kind of person, because of inherent trustworthiness, could be allowed to rise above the limitations of the Constitution. A person, when trustworthy enough, could, as President, be allowed to have citizens rounded up without due process. He could have their property seized, and could have those citizens executed, for the greater good. There would be no reason to institute any kind of control mechanism, because this President can be trusted to act merely for the benefit of the country as a whole. He would never use this power against innocent citizens.

I hope this is correct so far.

Finally, you essentially propose that the measure to find out which kind of person would be trustworthy enough to have all this power vested in his office and which person should be barred from having it is - your personal opinion about that person.

Did I get this right?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I guess I'm even more of a pessimist about America than Okie, 'cause I think we're in a situation where unscrupulous leaders can and will abuse the positions of power right now and have been for my entire lifetime.

Cycloptichorn

That started long before you were born. You should consider reading Heroditus. Alternatively, you could study some of the actions of presidents Jefferson, Jackson and even Lincoln (and others, including Wilson and FDR).

Sure, I just didn't want to seem like I was exaggerating.

Given this, is Okie's concern about the era Obama will bring to our country valid?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Okie wrote

Quote:

Foxfyre comes across as a very decent, thoughtful, and honest person.

I didn't want this to pass without thanking you Okie, knowing that defending me would put you in line for criticism.

I do not know what I possibly could have done to Debra or Kicky or C.I. or Cyclop or any of those who follow me around to say something unkind or hateful as often as they think they can work it in. I do not recall ever being intentionally dishonest or unkind or unpleasant to them or anybody. What I have done to make them despise me so, I don't have a clue. I don't believe I am more hard nosed or more partisan or more intractable than others on the right side, but I do seem to be their target so it must be some kind of flaw in my personality or the way I present my arguments.

They no longer can hurt me because I don't give petty people power to hurt me any more. But it does make it so unpleasant that I have withdrawn and spent time elsewhere and I am very close to doing that again.

But anyway thanks. It does help to have a friend. And I appreciate it.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

You are welcome, Foxfyre.

I saw a saying the other day, that may apply to some of the worst offenders here on this forum: "He who throws dirt loses ground."

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Dictatorial personalities tend to gravitate toward these leftist idealogies, because it satisfies their natural desire for power.

That doesn't seem to make much sense. On the last couple of pages, you've just again repeated your ideas about how Hitler really was far-left rather than ultra-right, and I don't want to repeat all of what Walter posted in reply.

However, this doesn't seem to make sense on the face of it. Consider, for example, ultra-nationalist ideas - the concept that your own country is superior to any other country in the world, that foreigners are inferior human beings, that your ethnicity is superior, that inferior elements should be permanently removed from your society, etc. etc.

How would this not be an ideology that would be attractive for a 'dictatorial personality'? Or do you consider excessive patriotism and ultra-nationalism to be concepts that can only be found on the left of the political spectrum?

2 Replies

@old europe,

We Americans are guilty of self love it is true. We do believe we live in the best country in the world. I don't know about others, but I wish for everybody everywhere to believe they live in the best country in the world. It is not, as you seem to think a feeling of superiority over any other people. It is more like appreciation and pure elation in feeling free and unhindered by limitations that a government might put on us to prevent us from being all that we choose to be within out ability and motivation.

But then New Yorkers believe they live in the best city in the world and Texans believe they live in the best state, and southerners take pride in being southern and so on. This is not a character flaw, I think, as much as just a quirk of the American spirit.

But you are dead wrong that Americans, at least most Americans, consider oursleves to be superior to foreigners or that our ethnicity is superior. My gosh, few countries in the world have as much ethnic diversity as we do--how could we possibly feel superior? We do believe that those who do not share American values sufficiently to obey the law here should be removed from our society, but I don't think we are much different than most other free countries in that regard.

How do you account for what appears to be a really low opinion of Americans? Have you ever been here to spend some time with us. I would love to have a chance to change your mind about us.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

I'm trying to make sense of that post, but, to me, it seems to contain quite a few contradictions.

For example, you say that "factor of trust" is important. Then you go on and say that trust in the Constitution and what it stands for are important. I'm following you so far. The Constitution, for very good reasons, curtails the power of the President (and of the respective branches of government). Mostly, it would seem to me, in order to prevent one branch from gaining too much power over the other branches, thereby corrupting the system and ultimately moving from democracy to tyranny.

Then, however, you go on to declare that it's all about trust in the person of the President. That seems to imply that a certain kind of person, because of inherent trustworthiness, could be allowed to rise above the limitations of the Constitution. A person, when trustworthy enough, could, as President, be allowed to have citizens rounded up without due process. He could have their property seized, and could have those citizens executed, for the greater good. There would be no reason to institute any kind of control mechanism, because this President can be trusted to act merely for the benefit of the country as a whole. He would never use this power against innocent citizens.

I hope this is correct so far.

Finally, you essentially propose that the measure to find out which kind of person would be trustworthy enough to have all this power vested in his office and which person should be barred from having it is - your personal opinion about that person.

Did I get this right?

No, you did not get it right at all. I will try again. By definition, the president has been vested with a constitutional power AND DUTY to protect the country. Therefore, let us take 9/11 as an example, Bush and the legal advice he got determined it was appropriate to use that authority to intercept phone calls from suspected terrorist cells, to detect further plots to do harm, possibly great harm. Face it, we live in a nuclear world. Some like cyclops would say its scare mongering. I say not. The threat is real, 9/11 happened, and more could happen if not deterred. Detection and prevention is part of the presidents's job.

Now, some will say he violated the constitution and abused power. I don't think so. For example, compare that with Lincoln arresting reporters for sedition, for simply reporting properly or for opposing the union efforts. Also compare FDR rounding up tens of thousands of Japanese American citizens for no reason except their cultural heritage.

If a president uses his power to accomplish things unrelated to his job or mission, then it is abuse of power. A president with character will not do that, but he will tend to have a counterbalance to any temptation to use that power to further his own ends. A president with character will only use the power vested in him to do what the constitution duly gives him the authority and duty to do, and no further. Understandably, there may be differing interpretations about where that exact line is between appropriate action and abuse. In Bush's case, his political opponents tried to make the case of abuse, but in my opinion was more of a political vendetta than a true case made by the opposition. When placed in context in history, any accused abuse by Bush is pretty weak at best, that is my opinion.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know