AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Show your evidence Cyclop. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it more true.

I'm not affirming nor denying that. If you have evidence that it is the case, post it.

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.

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm not affirming nor denying that. If you have evidence that it is the case, post it.

Do you not know if it is true? Or do you just not want to bring it up, because of the damage it does to your stated position that the Courts have decided there was no 4th amendment violation?

I have the evidence; I'm looking at the court cases right now. And I will post them on my next post. Regardless of what you post next. But let's hear you answer the two questions I posted here, because this really cuts to the heart of your case and your credibility on this issue.

Cycloptichorn

I have the evidence; I'm looking at the court cases right now. And I will post them on my next post. Regardless of what you post next.

Cycloptichorn

It was not well said, for her case relies upon an assertion which is unprovable and not supported by evidence - namely, that I am somehow envious of the success of others. I can assert, with greater evidence and validity than anyone else on this planet (let alone over the internet!) that this is not the case.

She is basically calling me a liar without evidence, and that is really poor form. I am not envious of any rich person, for I doubt they are an iota happier than me. Why would they be?

Cycloptichorn

On November 16, 2007, the three judges - M. Margaret McKeown, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Harry Pregerson - issued a 27-page ruling[15] that the charity, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, could not introduce a key piece of evidence in its case because it fell under the government's claim of state secrets, although the judges said that "In light of extensive government disclosures, the government is hard-pressed to sustain its claim that the very subject matter of the litigation is a state secret."[16]

ACLU vs. NSA/CIA

On May 26, 2006, the U.S. Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA by invoking the state secrets privilege. On July 26, 2006, the case was dismissed.

Center for Constitutional Rights et al v. Bush et al

On May 27, 2006 the Justice Department moved to preempt the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) challenge to warrantless domestic surveillance by invoking the state secrets privilege. The Bush Administration is arguing that CCR's case could reveal secrets regarding U.S. national security, and thus the presiding judge must dismiss it without reviewing the evidence.

I did not call you a liar. I said that I did not believe you and gave my very explicit reason for not believing you. I don't believe you think you were stating an untruth which is my definition of a lie.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I have the evidence; I'm looking at the court cases right now. And I will post them on my next post. Regardless of what you post next.

Cycloptichorn

Yet, your next post was...

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It was not well said, for her case relies upon an assertion which is unprovable and not supported by evidence - namely, that I am somehow envious of the success of others. I can assert, with greater evidence and validity than anyone else on this planet (let alone over the internet!) that this is not the case.

She is basically calling me a liar without evidence, and that is really poor form. I am not envious of any rich person, for I doubt they are an iota happier than me. Why would they be?

Cycloptichorn

so, where are they?

My apologies. It's a little late for me to get involved in a beef between you two; I missed the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, and should have noted it.

Otherwise, I thought it was a great summation of the outlook of a conservative vs a liberal. And I happen to agree with Fox that Obama's plan to eliminate charitable deductions will be a disaster for most American charities...

Okay, if not envy, then I apologize for using that term. It is ad hominem and is inappropriate.

So why do you hold the rich in such disdain? They aren't any happier than you, you say. They are greedy, you say. etc. etc. etc. I have yet seen you post a single syllable that makes me believe that you consider it honorable and/or respectable to achieve success and financial prosperity. Most of your comments support the notion that the government should either disallow that or knock such people down a peg or more.

As to your state secrets thing, yes you are citing where the issue has been raised. But you still haven't posted anything to show that this is illegal or constitutional. Or perhaps you would care to make an argument for why state secrets are never appropriate, permissable, or legal?

And. . . .Are you going to answer my question as to what constitutional authority gives Congress the right to impose punative taxes on a targeted group not because what the group did was illegal but because Congress has been embarrassed?

Yes he is on record with his intention of limiting charitable contributions that can be deducted by the rich. Among other things that are really really bad ideas. (That wasn't my point in that post, but ALV and I are probably on the same page with that nevertheless.)

Paul N. Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in his own report on the effects of limiting the deduction for charitable giving that, with more people having access to paid health care, there would be a corresponding drop in the need for charitable agencies to provide uncompensated health care, thus offsetting the loss in donations.

Catholic Review

Bush, April 2004:

Transcript:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires " a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.