AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

It's sad to me, that you cannot see any other reason for opposition to your position than 'class envy.' It basically confirms that you feel the desire for more and more personal possessions you have inside must be shared by others and that must be the reason they disagree with you.

I am here to tell you that this is not the case, Fox. I don't desire more stuff and I don't envy the success of others. I just think we should do things a different way, to the benefit of all of us.

You betray yourself through your accusations.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

The guilty usually make the first move.
K
O

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

He can't, but seems to have drunk the kool-ade requiring recitation of the 'company line'. Seems the 'company line' also requires voting down posts, not because they are offensive or personally insulting or disruptive, but because they aren't liberal. Oh well, everybody needs a hobby.

I have a huge problem with all this bailout nonsense going on, but if Congress is going to make loans to companies, I have no problem with them negotiating specific terms for those loans and they should. The private companies receiving government loans have the freedom to accept those terms or not take the loans. If Congress does it stupidly (as they did), they demonstrate fiduciary incompetence, but there is no problem with Congress violating constitutionally protected freedoms.

But after Congress has made the loans, to then target a specific group for punative taxation because the public is furious at Congress for abdicating its fiduciary responsibilities--THAT is downright scary. Congress being stupid can be extremely costly and deserves contempt, but it doesn't create permanent conditions that we cannot recover from. But assuming authority to confiscate property to punish a specific small group, not because they did anything illegal, but because the people are angry--that could set a precedent from which we wouldn't not easily recover without the kind of revolution that I think none of us even want to think about.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Well, he did answer, whether you agree with his answer or not.

And I would add that the Republicans, through the NSA, removed the 4th amendment rights from Americans when they instituted their spying program. There exists reams of evidence that people were spied upon for no good reason whatsoever; I would ask you to review the words of former NSA whistleblower Russel Tice, who detailed exactly how this was done.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

He can't,

I did.

Foxfyre wrote:

but seems to have drunk the kool-ade requiring recitation of the 'company line'.

You're in no place to be critical. You can't even humble yourself to answer the simple question of what the flaws in conservatism is. You think your **** doesn't stink, and you are too full of pride to admit that it is just like any other ideology, including the fact that i has flaws. But no, for you, conservatism is perfect, and everything else is flawed.

I have no problem identifying the problems in liberalism/progressivism because I know that being aware of those weaknesses is a part of working with them. No company line Fox.

Foxfyre wrote:

Seems the 'company line' also requires voting down posts, not because they are offensive or personally insulting or disruptive, but because they aren't liberal. Oh well, everybody needs a hobby.

If I care enough to vote down someone, I usually just put them on ignore. I've never voted your posts down Fox, you aren't on ignore. Paranoid much?

Foxfyre wrote:

But after Congress has made the loans, to then target a specific group for punative taxation because the public is furious at Congress for abdicating its fiduciary responsibilities--THAT is downright scary.

I think that a small group hustling the American people and running off with their money scott free is FAR more scary.

Foxfyre wrote:

Congress being stupid can be extremely costly and deserves contempt, but it doesn't create permanent conditions that we cannot recover from. But assuming authority to confiscate property to punish a specific small group, not because they did anything illegal, but because the people are angry--that could set a precedent from which we wouldn't not easily recover without the kind of revolution that I think none of us even want to think about.

Come to the help of these corporate robbers, please. I beg of you. This is a con job, and if it wasn't white collar crime, you'd recognize this fr what it is. Instead you think you are defending some principle. People like you are the people these cons count on.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

He can't, but seems to have drunk the kool-ade requiring recitation of the 'company line'.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures is not a right or freedom granted by the Constitution?

'Cause it seems that he mentioned that, right there....

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

It's sad to me, that you cannot see any other reason for opposition to your position than 'class envy.' It basically confirms that you feel the desire for more and more personal possessions you have inside must be shared by others and that must be the reason they disagree with you.

I am here to tell you that this is not the case, Fox. I don't desire more stuff and I don't envy the success of others. I just think we should do things a different way, to the benefit of all of us.

You betray yourself through your accusations.

Cycloptichorn

It confirms nothing of the sort. It is the simple difference between your brand of liberalism that you believe right and my brand of conservatism that I believe right.

I believe that if you give the government the power to determine what charity will be dispensed, to whom it will be dispensed, and how much property can be confiscated from the productive of society for dispensation, you give the government power to take anything it wants from anybody for any purpose. The government can be emboldened to take more and more freedoms and property from us, to demand more and more mandates, and exercise more and more control so it can order whatever society it deems to be desirable or that which will empower and enrich those in government.

I believe that this puts us on a dangerous and slippery slope that no person who values personal freedom and a concept of unalienable rights can tolerate.

I have already posted a ream of evidence showing that conservative Americans are personally charitable, do look to care for the most helpless among us, are generous with their time, talent, and personal wealth to help those in need far more than are liberals who want government to do that. And we have argued ad nauseum that poor people are in no position to help poor people prosper. Rich people are and do. You cannot help people by taking away ability of people in a position to help--you cannot help the poor by making the rich poorer but you will always hurt the poor in the attempt.

I don't believe you that you don't resent the success of others, or you would not be willing to urge the government to confiscate it and you would not speak so contemptuously of the rich and/or those of us who see the ability to prosper legally and ethically as an unalienable right. The liberal seeks to level the playing field thinking that improves the situation for everybody. The MACean belief is that seeking to level the playing field is far more likely to create equality of misery.

The liberal thinks charity is forcing everybody to contribute. The conservative knows that charity is giving of your own resources and not somebody elses. The conservative also knows that intentionally promoting concepts that sound good but that have historically proved to be detrimental to the poor is not charity, but is born of class envy. He is neither noble nor charitable nor compassionate who looks to others to provide that.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

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.

Accomplishing that will require some work. The effort to overcome the already growing hysteria of the Obam-crats will not be easy, but it is necessary. So let's do that work. Let's start by convincing enough people who want to preserve our Constitutional Republic to join the effort.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
He can't, but seems to have drunk the kool-ade requiring recitation of the 'company line'.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures is not a right or freedom granted by the Constitution?

'Cause it seems that he mentioned that, right there....

You must have missed the exhaustive discussion of that a few days ago, or maybe you voted it down so you wouldn't have to read it? There have been exhaustive investigations as to whether there have been constitutional violations of privacy and a few 'inappropriate' actions were identified though there is not agreement on whether even those were inappropriate. Certainly there have been no actionable or punishable violations of anybody's freedoms in our country's effort to intercept and stop those who intend to do bloody violence to America and Americans. There is much saber ratting and santimonious rhetoric, the but Congress continues to fund those activites doesn't it? And the Democrats are in charge.

I am pretty sure that the government once tapped my phone because I was working for an organization indirectly involved with some illegal immigration activity. This was during the Reagan administration. I was aware of it and I didn't resent it because I understood the reason for it.

I have never had my personal privacy violated by any Republican administration. Or Democratic administration for that matter. But those who drink the kool-ade don't want to consider the principles involved. They just want to accuse and demonize and speak the party talking points. God forbid we should actually consider what is actually happening instead of demonizing the other guys.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, he did answer, whether you agree with his answer or not.

And I would add that the Republicans, through the NSA, removed the 4th amendment rights from Americans when they instituted their spying program. There exists reams of evidence that people were spied upon for no good reason whatsoever; I would ask you to review the words of former NSA whistleblower Russel Tice, who detailed exactly how this was done.

Cycloptichorn

I disagree. See my response to OE which is now at least the second time or third time that I have responded to these same lame allegations without anybody rebutting them with anything other than more lame allegations. If there was unconstitutional or criminal activity going on, do you think there is ANY chance the Democrats would not have been all over that? But they kept voting to fund the program. And that includes even President Obama.

(I'm still not convinced that you and TKO are not the same person.)

But it is a constitutional responsibility of our government to defend us from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and in this high tech world with throwaway cell phones and email etc., none of which existed when the Consitution was written, those who protect us must deal with now. If boundaries are overstepped, then yes somebody must expose that and those policies stopped. I'm sure that has happened.

I wish you were as diligent in appreciating that the current government is also overstepping boundaries and that also needs to be stopped.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You must have missed the exhaustive discussion of that a few days ago, or maybe you voted it down so you wouldn't have to read it?

Right.

See, you said Diest was unable to mention even one right that has been taken away. I pointed out that he mentioned Fourth Amendment rights.

Now, whether that was discussed before or not, or whether you agree with him or not wasn't really the question. You accused him of being unable to come up with anything, and that's clearly contradicted by Diest's reply to mysteryman.

However, it's your snotty replies like the sentence above that really make a discussion not worthwhile. Which is a pity, because I rather enjoyed the discussion about neo-Nazi parties and the EU the other day. However, I'm not constantly following this thread and reading each and every post, and this fixation about 'conservative' posts getting downvoted also seems mildly paranoid to me. Anyways, I'm not in the mood for that tone of discussion today.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Section 9. ...
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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.

However, the power to redistribute wealth is not granted by the Constitution to the federal government.

Therefore, it is a violation of the Constitution for the federal government to redistribute wealth.

Therefore, it is a violation of the "supreme law of the land" (Article VI) for the federal government to redistribute wealth.

Therefore, it is illegal for the federal government to redistribute wealth.

Therefore, it is a crime against the American people, whose wealth is being redistributed, for the federal government to redistribute wealth.

Therefore, it is robbery by the federal government for the federal government to redistribute wealth.

Taking money from people and organizations that lawfully earned that money, and giving it to people and organizations who have not earned that money, is robbery.

When a gang commits robbery, we call that gangsterism.

0 Replies

How long can the federal government redistribute wealth until there is no more wealth to redistribute?

Check with Cuba and Venezuela. They are both making much progress toward that end.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Has government redistribution of wealth ever made anyone other than a member of government better off for longer than a couple of generations?

If not, why allow government to redistribute wealth?

Wait! I forgot! It sure makes those happier who are suffering from the mental disorder of wealth envy!

CORRECTION
It sure makes those LESS RESENTFUL who are suffering from the mental disorder of wealth envy!

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You must have missed the exhaustive discussion of that a few days ago, or maybe you voted it down so you wouldn't have to read it?

Right.

See, you said Diest was unable to mention even one right that has been taken away. I pointed out that he mentioned Fourth Amendment rights.

Now, whether that was discussed before or not, or whether you agree with him or not wasn't really the question. You accused him of being unable to come up with anything, and that's clearly contradicted by Diest's reply to mysteryman.

However, it's your snotty replies like the sentence above that really make a discussion not worthwhile. Which is a pity, because I rather enjoyed the discussion about neo-Nazi parties and the EU the other day. However, I'm not constantly following this thread and reading each and every post, and this fixation about 'conservative' posts getting downvoted also seems mildly paranoid to me. Anyways, I'm not in the mood for that tone of discussion today.

I see. So the fact that he manufactures something or cites something that has already been decided in the courts and has been disproved is citing a valid constitutional right that the Republicans have taken away? I don't read TKOs posts these days while he seems to be able to unable to make any argument that is not ad hominem or personally insulting. Once he returns to civility, then I will again engage him. That is purely for my own peace of mind and enjoyment of the thread, and I'm sure a caring, compassionate, generous liberal will understand that.

You think my remark snotty? I think it snotty to disrupt the thread by reintroducing the same lame accusations that have already been addressed and not providing a shred of evidence to support the accusations. The subject is an interesting one and I'm sure several would enjoy exploring the pros and cons of it in a civil manner toward understanding it. But anybody who drops by just to make an ad hominem or insulting remarks re the GOP or any member certainly has the right to do that. But I also have the right to choose not to accommodate that again and again.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I see. So the fact that he manufactures something or cites something that has already been decided in the courts and has been disproved is citing a valid constitutional right that the Republicans have taken away?

Fox, the courts have not decided that no fourth amendment rights were broken at all; instead, the State Secrets act has been successfully used to keep said lawsuits from going forward. There's also the point that the Administration admitted to violating the FISA laws on the books; they did not seek judicial approval before spying on Americans whatsoever. You may recall that these laws were put in place thanks to the shenanigans of another Republican - Nixon - who most certainly was spying on Americans. So there's at least one example for ya that you couldn't possibly disagree with.

The 'exhaustive investigations' you cite also did not occur. You cannot trust organizations to self-investigate and self-censure, for that is an extremely poor way to discover the truth of any situation. Wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

My dear Cyclop, please review modern history for the error of your statements or provide a credible source to support them. You may have forgotten that the Democrats have been in control for the past two years and will soon have voted on three consecutive budgets. All they had to do to stop any activity they deemed illegal was to pull the funding for it. They haven't.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

My dear Cyclop, please review modern history for the error of your statements or provide a credible source to support them. You may have forgotten that the Democrats have been in control for the past two years and will soon have voted on three consecutive budgets. All they had to do to stop any activity they deemed illegal was to pull the funding for it. They haven't.

Do you pretend that this constitutes proof that nothing illegal is going on? It does not. Congress is not privy to the actions of the NSA, only a small group of the Congressional leadership, who on both sides of the isle have claimed they were not fully informed about the actions undertaken by the NSA.

Start here, and learn something about this issue -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tice

Quote:

.

On July 26, 2006, he was subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury regarding violations of federal law. He reportedly said “This latest action by the government is designed only for one purpose: to ensure that people who witness criminal action being committed by the government are intimidated into remaining silent.”.[2]

On January 08, 2008 a Whistleblower named Dave Larson[3] made significant disclosures to the Dept. of Defense Office of the Inspector General and to Senate members substantiating allegations made by Tice and which detailed unlawful criminal acts committed under Special Access Program (SAP) provisions. This matter remains pending and current with the Dept. of Defense Inspector General as case #103586.

On the first of two consecutive appearances on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann (January 21 [4] and January 22 [5], 2009), Russ Tice stated that while he worked in the NSA, his role was to follow the communications of specific individuals in a program separate from the one that had been previously disclosed. He stated that he initially understood that he was to identify the communication methods of journalists (and entire news organizations) so that they could avoid collection. He subsequently learned that these channels were being recorded 24/7. Since this appeared to be a political and not security operation of the NSA, Tice withheld disclosing it until the next administration. Tice also stated that programs were given dual military and intelligence status so that both types of congressional oversight could be simultaneously denied.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Oh I'm aware of that testimony and have discussed it extensively either here on A2k or elsewhere just as I'm aware of the non sequitur and continuous allegations posted in this thread and umpteen gazillion other A2K threads and elsewhere. I'm not saying that there haven't been accusations. TKO makes accustations. You make accusations.

What I am saying is there have been no charges brought that anybody has been able to make stick except in very minor areas to cease and desist certain minor policies but for which there was no actionable offense committed. For the most part the activities have been deemed legal, necessary, and important to do via the courts and/or other legal opinion, and the Congress, even under Democrat power, have continued to fund them. No constitutional rights are being violated.

If you can show otherwise, then show it. The testimony of one person certainly supports your opinion and is appropriate to include in the mix, but it does not provide any kind of proof for the allegations that you are making. How seriously do you take people who go on television or before Congress or whatever making allegations about people you support? Especially when the facts simply don't bear out the allegations?

But please show the constitutional authority that allows the government to target a specific group with punative taxes because Congress has been embarrassed.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Fox, the charges have not 'stuck' b/c the State Secrets act has been invoked to cancel the court cases in question. Do you deny this fact?

There is less evidence and less allegations against ACORN than the NSA, yet that never seems to have stopped you and other Republicans from continually pointing the finger at them. I would suggest consistency if you expect others to be convinced by your argumentation that only successful court convictions provide evidence that something is going on.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know