AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter. Every EU nation is a sovereign nation, a fully independent country, with its own nationality, own foreign relations, own citizens.

Happy even thought that had NOTHING to do with the point I was making?

Geez.

(I guess just acknowledging something like that is not enough for some people if you don't say it exactly the way they think you should say it.)

That's Walter's MO Fox. Thought you knew that by now.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Yeah I know, McG, but Walter is who he is and he has been mostly pretty cool lately and I am trying to keep it friendly. Smile

0 Replies

AGAIN, HOW SHALL WE SAVE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC?
The solution for how to save our Constitutional Republic is not to repeatedly sound alarms and repeatedly give the reasons for those alarms. The solution is to impeach President Obama, Senator Dodd, and Congressman Frank. They are continually executing or legislating the transfer of wealth from those persons and organizations that lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations that have not earned it.

Nowhere in the Constitution"not even in Article I. Section 8.--has the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary been granted the power to make such wealth transfers. Any branch of the federal government that makes such wealth transfers violates the "supreme law of the land," and their "oath or affirmation to support this Constitution""Article VI. Making such wealth transfers is exercising "powers not delegated to the United States" and therefore violates the Constitution"Amendment X. Making such wealth transfers is an act of treason against the United States and is "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" "Article III. Section 3.

We have to convince those in the House of Representatives, who do not violate their oaths to support the Constitution, to make a motion to impeach President Obama plus Senator Dodd, and Congressman Frank. Failure--or excessive delay--to take this necessary first step will guarantee the transformation of our country from a Constitutional Republic to a dictatorship.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

But even if we agree with you Ican--I'm still mulling this over--how do we make the motion? Such initiatives have to originate in the House and so far Pelosi has not allowed a single GOP legislative initiative out of committee, much less allowed it to be debated on the floor. And it is unlikely that such would be allowed from the handful of rational Democrats left in the House. Despite his grandiose campaign pledge to be bipartisan and President of everybody, his response to any GOP requests has been "I won."

I don't see how to accomplish it in any other way than to keep making the attempt to educate the public sufficiently so that they will throw out everybody who has gone nuts in Congress, whether they be Democrat or Republican, and put some people in there who do believe in the Constitution and the principles that undergird it.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Checked in on the Drudge Report this morning to find out what the news of the day is likely to be--as does I think every major media source out there --and found this. If it can be taken at face value, I wonder what our MACs and the loyal opposition think about this? Any red flags? Do you interpret this as possibly the administration considering regulation of ALL executive pay? If so, then this would definitely be a slippery slope that might require more than tea parties to rise up against.

Quote:
Obama will call for increased oversight of 'executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies' as part of sweeping plan to 'overhaul financial regulation', NY TIMES reporting Sunday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE... Developing...

I sincerely hope they do this, and what more, have been predicting for some time that this will happen. It is long since time that executive pay was regulated here in America. I don't expect those who support unregulated markets and unregulated greed to agree, but that's just too bad, isn't it?

Tell ya what. You get your like-minded compatriots together, and see if you can muster up resistance to the US government. Do you believe you would be successful?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me "
and by that time no one was left to speak up
--Martin Niemoller

And though there is some dispute re whether Martin Niemöller spoke this before Congress, this is attributed to him in the Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636, as:

Quote:

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church " and there was nobody left to be concerned.

I am not a corporate executive so it is okay if Congress oversteps its constitutional authority and takes control of private corporate compensation for executives. Nobody is worth that much money anyway. And I am not a rich man, so why should I care if Congress socks it to a few fat cats who probably got what they earned unethically anyway? And I'm not all that well off so I won't worry about it when the government decides to rein in the middle class a bit.

You mean the government will be telling me that I can't get any more raises or increase my earnings beyond a certain point? How did THAT happen?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I'm not Evangelical/Protestant - but I worked a couple of years in Niemöller's former nursery room. [The 25th anniversary of his death was just a couple of days ago.] I'm sure he wouldn't like his words used for all and everything besides what he wanted to say.

His wife said:
"The trouble with Martin Niemoeller's 'famous quotation' is that he never wrote it down - which enabled so many hitchhikers over the years to 'put themselves on the waggon'.
In his 'Confession of Guilt' (as he called it himself: Schuldbekenntnis in German) the Communists came first, then the Trade Unionists and then the Socialists and then the Jews. NO ONE ELSE.” [Sibylle von Sell, 23.4.2000 in h-holocaust http://www.h-net.org/~holoweb/]

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

You mean the government will be telling me that I can't get any more raises or increase my earnings beyond a certain point? How did THAT happen?

See, the difference between us is that I don't care if the government tells me that I've achieved the cap of earnings per year. Why would I care? Is it somehow going to make my life worse when that happens?

No, it is not. For greed is not my driving factor, other things in life are far more important.

Are you truly that desperate to own ever-increasing pieces of property, possessions, or the ever-popular 'power?' What good does it do you to do so?

I suspect that many aspire to be rich based on the things our media and society put forth as 'ideal.' I aspire to be happy and to be a good person. Money is not all that relevant to this and capping executive pay - or even my pay - in no way prevents me from achieving my ultimate goal.

I have little sympathy for those whose goals are based in avarice, and fear change to a system which places no limits on their avarice.

I have an interesting proposal that I've been thinking about for a while, which I will start another thread about later; it is the creation of a new class in our society, the Entrepreneur-philanthropist. I believe we can solve the goals of several groups at once while benefiting society as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, The conservatives are not really conservative in their life choices. They say they are, but they defend to the death all those executives who made the wrong choices to bankrupt their companies, and think it's okay to continue the past practice of rewarding failure with their high salaries and bonus. They continue to defend lower taxes for the rich while our country's deficit continues to climb, and transfer them to our children and grandchildren, because they don't want to transfer their wealth to the poor.

They fail to see the obvious with their conservative advocacy.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

You mean the government will be telling me that I can't get any more raises or increase my earnings beyond a certain point? How did THAT happen?

See, the difference between us is that I don't care if the government tells me that I've achieved the cap of earnings per year. Why would I care? Is it somehow going to make my life worse when that happens?

And that sir is why you are a liberal. You put your complete faith in government to do the right thing for you and don't care what it allows you and/or takes away from you.

The MAC (i.e. classical liberal) puts his/her faith, dignity, hope, and trust in personal freedom, imagination, vision, and the ability of the individual to choose what is best for himself/herself, to strive for achievement and excellence, and thereby contribute to the highest good for all. He/she does not trust the government one inch with that kind of responsibility but rather knows that those governments given or which took that kind of power have ALWAYS abused and misused it in the past and will do so again to the detriment of personal freedom, initiative, and achievement.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

And stuff. Don't forget the lots and lots of possessions that your philosophy just happens to justify doing things to achieve. B/c that is a prime motivator of those in your position, Fox.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But even if we agree with you Ican--I'm still mulling this over--how do we make the motion? Such initiatives have to originate in the House and so far Pelosi has not allowed a single GOP legislative initiative out of committee, much less allowed it to be debated on the floor. And it is unlikely that such would be allowed from the handful of rational Democrats left in the House. Despite his grandiose campaign pledge to be bipartisan and President of everybody, his response to any GOP requests has been "I won."

I don't see how to accomplish it in any other way than to keep making the attempt to educate the public sufficiently so that they will throw out everybody who has gone nuts in Congress, whether they be Democrat or Republican, and put some people in there who do believe in the Constitution and the principles that undergird it.

All that is required to START, is a motion and a second from the floor of the House of Congress to get the attention of the very people you, and I too, wish to educate sufficiently to understand the reality that the Obama-crats are violating our Constitution of the USA and crippling our Constitutional Republic. Such a motion once made plus, who knows how many, "points of order" will be required to facilitate discussing why that motion MUST be brought to a vote. It will serve as a much needed political fulcrum. That fulcrum is required for an effective launching of a nationwide debate on the illegality of Obama-crat behavior, how it is harming our country, and HOW WE CAN STOP THAT BEHAVIOR.

I'm sure you already understand that too many Americans are afraid to publicly express their desire to rid our country of the Obama-crats. But they will eventually overcome that fear if their are enough other Americans who demonstrate they are not afraid to publicly express that desire.

What the people now need is not to know what the problem is. What the people need now is to know HOW to solve this damnable problem. Impeachment probably will not occur unless the people's wrath is expressed often enough and loud enough.

However, ultimately the people will have to be brought to understand that to save our country from the Obama-crats, ALL of the Obama-crats must be removed from office, either by impeaching them by the House AND removing them from office by the Senate, or the people voting them out of office.

Foxfyre, Thank you very much for asking!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Ican - Your idea to go wild with impeachment is stupid. Plain stupid. Your rationale for it, even stupider.

How about this? Stop being lazy and be about something. Don't think the country is in a good place? Contribute. You may not like other's method's or views, but try to be about something. I get sick of lazy ass people like you.

It's pure egoism. You prefer that problems be addressed your way over the problems being solved. Your whining isn't about government, it's about democrats and how your world view has fallen in the public eye.

Suck it up.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And that sir is why you are a liberal. You put your complete faith in government to do the right thing for you and don't care what it allows you and/or takes away from you.

Hypocrite. Your precious republican party takes and takes and takes, and never blushes. They take money, and the take freedoms away.

It is not that liberals trust the government more. I know first and foremost, that the government is not one solid rigid body. It is in fact a collection of people. Those people range from the good and altruistic to the greedy and advantageous. I understand that the government isn't something to be in contention with, even is there is competing interests/agendas.

I believe that Obama said it very well when he said that it is not about large or small government, but effective or ineffective government. you obviously think that the path to effective government is by making it smaller. If you believe it, prove it. It's not that I think that larger is better, but I think that a government that cuts off it's limbs isn't going to be very effective.

I'm very comfortable with disagreeing with others about this view. You need to be challenged to let go of trying to do everything the MAC way, and simply just problem solving. If you don't see the separation, I don't see how you are of any consequence.

Foxfyre wrote:

The MAC (i.e. classical liberal) puts his/her faith, dignity, hope, and trust in personal freedom, imagination, vision, and the ability of the individual to choose what is best for himself/herself, to strive for achievement and excellence, and thereby contribute to the highest good for all. He/she does not trust the government one inch with that kind of responsibility but rather knows that those governments given or which took that kind of power have ALWAYS abused and misused it in the past and will do so again to the detriment of personal freedom, initiative, and achievement.

Okay Fox, lets hear it. In this country that you love, tell me with no subterfuge what the government has done to you to put such a chip on your shoulder. I suspect that you think your experience is extraordinary somehow or that you think you have the insight (that others lack) to condemn the government. Further, it is not the condemnation of individuals, but instead the faceless, dimensionless entity only referred to you as "the government."

Your **** stinks too Fox, and while you can write all the things you claim you believe down here, you support a lot of things that are diametrically opposed to your list.

I suspect you think too highly of yourself to understand any of this though.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I'm not Evangelical/Protestant - but I worked a couple of years in Niemöller's former nursery room. [The 25th anniversary of his death was just a couple of days ago.] I'm sure he wouldn't like his words used for all and everything besides what he wanted to say.

His wife said:
"The trouble with Martin Niemoeller's 'famous quotation' is that he never wrote it down - which enabled so many hitchhikers over the years to 'put themselves on the waggon'.
In his 'Confession of Guilt' (as he called it himself: Schuldbekenntnis in German) the Communists came first, then the Trade Unionists and then the Socialists and then the Jews. NO ONE ELSE.” [Sibylle von Sell, 23.4.2000 in h-holocaust http://www.h-net.org/~holoweb/]

Then, since you so often send me to Wikipedia for authoritative information, perhaps you would like to advise them of their error re Niemoeller?

Niemoeller was not purely a classical liberal, but I've read enough of him to think that he would not mind my use of his metaphorical illustration as I have used it. I think he would have agreed that if you allow the government to interfere with the freedom/property of any group, no matter who it is, then nobody is safe.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And stuff. Don't forget the lots and lots of possessions that your philosophy just happens to justify doing things to achieve. B/c that is a prime motivator of those in your position, Fox.

Cycloptichorn

The unalienable right to one's property that is lawfully and ethically acquired is indeed one of the cornerstones of MACean (classical liberal) principles. When a government is allowed power to take whatever or however much it wants from the people for whatever reason, then we the people have no power and no freedom at all. In fact it was that simple principle that provided most of the impetus for the Boston Tea Party.

Of course the government intent on eroding or taking away our freedoms are more than happy to use the class envy, i.e. loathing of the success and prosperity of others, to their advantage in doing that.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Then, since you so often send me to Wikipedia for authoritative information, perhaps you would like to advise them of their error re Niemoeller?

Well, my quote is on wikipedia - the German version, which took it from the Niemöller foundation.
As said, Niemöller was born here, we had had just the festivities ...
(I suppose, however, most will agree that he was a conservative.)

0 Replies

Fox - Simply put, the government has (1) the right to tax you, and (2) you aren't the only one being taxed.

This current GOP meme of socialism and wealth being seized is dishonet.
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

They take money, and the take freedoms away.

Name one right or freedom granted to you by the constitution that the repubs have taken away from you personally.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
They take money, and the take freedoms away.

Name one right or freedom granted to you by the constitution that the repubs have taken away from you personally.

What about the right to privacy for starts.

What about how they try and insert Christianity into our government, and marginalize other religions, and the non-religious. They want freedom of religion for themselves, not others. If someone is gay, they can't serve openly in the military thanks to the GOP. Next, let us not forget the republican charge to profile minorities in the "war on terror."

In terms of the pursuit of happiness, they demonize illegal immigrants and at the same time try to make it harder for them to immigrate legally. With my own immigrant family, we came over and worked hard to buy land and live an American dream. They were thrown in camps in the name of national security. That wasn't a republican thing back then, but it seems they didn't learn the lesson about profiling and robbing people of their dignity in modern times.

The GOP can make good steps right now, or they can keep trying the same old tested and failed ideas. Nobody wants to be wrong democrat or republican, but I see the dems learning a lot more from their mistakes, while the GOP insist that they don't make mistakes. Why are they so defensive? Cognitive dissonance perhaps.

T
K
O

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know