AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@wandeljw,

Dr. Williams as you posted is a professor of Economics at George Mason University--I believe he was department head for awhile. He writes a widely published syndicated column, has been featured in numerous scholarly journals, and has written a number of books. He has been called as an expert witness before Congress a number of times, is often a guest on various television shows, both conservative and liberal, and substitutes now and then as a radio talk show host. He is quite a philanthropist and serves on a number of charitable boards as well as conservative/libertarian think tanks. He is staunchly libertarian.

Why do you ask?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I have always found it ironic that those who are "pro-life" are so convinced of the rectitude of their position, that they are content to see clinic workers and abortion physicians killed.

99.9% of pro-life people would never be content over clinic workers or abortion doctors killed. To say it is typical of pro-life people is nonsense.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, How did you come up with 99.9%? Another one of you BS.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, How did you come up with 99.9%? Another one of you BS.

I thought you had me on "ignore?" I actually think it was better to keep it that way, but you must have gotten bored?

So its 99.7%, or 98.9%, so what, feel free to debate the percentage, but the point is still pertinent, that only the very small percentage fringe pro-life people advocate killing anyone, ci.

0 Replies

Cyclops wrote:

Berkeley is not the Liberal place you imagine it to be.

*********************************************************************

Cyclops again proves that he is HIGHLY excrementatious.

Note: The most liberal cities in various states.

IN STATE
(For selected states)
AZ - Flagstaff
CA - Berkeley
CO - Telluride
CT - Salisbury
FL - Wilton Manors
GA - Decatur
IA - Iowa City
IL - Oak Park
KS - Lawrence
MA - Boston
MD - Mount Rainier
ME - Orono
MI - Ferndale
MN - Golden Valley
MO - Kansas City
NC - Carrboro
NH - Hanover
NJ - Montclair
NM - Santa Fe
NY - Ithaca
OH - Oberlin
OR - Lincoln City
PA - Philadelphia
RI - Providence
TX - Bellaire
VA - Baileys Crossroads
VT - Johnson
WA - Vashon
WI - Madison

0 Replies

Okie- I don't think Cicerone Imposter could read the material below. His brain was severely damaged when he was in the concentration camp, you know!

GardenFood and WineCuteMotoringRelationshipsLifestyle BlogsVideoAudio
Lifestyle News : News-Lifestyle
Pro-lifers the majority in US - poll
Sat, 16 May 2009 11:59a.m.
A Gallup Poll released Friday found that 51 percent of Americans now call themselves pro-life rather than pro-choice on the issue of abortion, the first time a majority gave that answer in the 15 years that Gallup has asked the question.

The findings, obtained in an annual survey on values and beliefs conducted May 7-10, marked a significant shift from a year ago. A year ago, 50 percent said they were pro-choice and 44 percent pro-life - in the new poll, 42 percent said they were pro-choice.

The new survey showed that Americans remained deeply divided on the legality of abortion - with 23 percent saying it should be illegal in all circumstances, 22 percent saying it should be legal under any circumstances, and 53 percent saying it should be legal only under certain circumstances.

The findings echoed a recent national survey by the Pew Research Center, which reported a sharp decline since last August in those saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases - from 54 percent to 46 percent.

Taken together, the two polls have elated anti-abortion activists, who had been stung by the November election results that placed President Barack Obama and other abortion-rights supporters in power in Washington.

"Ironically, Obama's radical abortion policies and nominees may have helped make America more pro-life," said Wendy Wright, president of the conservative advocacy group Concerned Women for America.

The Rev Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said the poll findings demonstrate that the anti-abortion cause "is a vibrant, growing, youthful movement."

"We are winning the battle for hearts and minds in our culture on the life issue," he said.

The Gallup poll's release came just ahead of Obama's scheduled commencement speech Sunday at the University of Notre Dame, where he also is to receive an honorary degree. Those plans by the Roman Catholic university have sparked a wave of protests by anti-abortion activists, who contend Notre Dame should not honour a such a prominent supporter of abortion rights.

Gallup said its new poll showed an increase in the pro-life position across Christian religious affiliations, including an eight-point gain among Protestants and a seven-point gain among Catholics. It also reported a 10-point shift toward the pro-life category among Republicans but said there was no significant change among Democrats.

In the new poll, men identify as pro-life, 54 percent to 39 percent, while women also tilt pro-life 49 percent to 44 percent. A year ago, Gallup found more women calling themselves pro-choice than pro-life, by 50 percent to 43 percent, while men were more closely divided: 49 percent pro-choice, 46 percent pro-life.

"It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be 'pro-choice' slightly to the left, politically," according to the Gallup analysis. "While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction."

The Gallup survey was based on telephone interviews with 1,015 adults nationwide. Its margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

AP

0 Replies

Here is the complete post showing that Cyclops is a liar.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLACE SEARCH
Enter a community name:

State:

MOST LIBERAL PLACES

ePodunk study identifies the most liberal communities in the U.S.
For all those frustrated Democrats who are considering a move to Canada, we offer a few closer alternatives.

Our list of "Most Liberal Places in America" is based not on opinion polls, which have come under fire in recent elections, but on votes, political contributions and demographics. The rankings, at right, show nationwide picks by the size of the community and statewide rankings for 29 states.

We considered the following data in making our selections:

Individual contributions to PACs
We analyzed 1.8 million contributions to 2,300 political action committees that could be identified as Democratic/Liberal or Republican/Conservative. This data, for the 2003-2004 election cycle, was downloaded from the Federal Election Commission on Nov. 9.

Election returns
Unofficial election results in the 2004 presidential race were reported at the county level for every county in the U.S., and at the local level for many New England communities.

Gay households
This index was compiled from the U.S. Census by Gary Gates, a demographer at the Urban Institute and co-author of The Gay and Lesbian Atlas. Figures were included for the 1,360 U.S. communities in which 50 or more couples reported living in such relationships.

Local government resolutions opposing combat in Iraq

Local officials performing gay marriages

Congressional District voting history
(Note: Because this factor was part of the screen for rankings, Washington, D.C., which does not have congressional representation, was excluded from our study. Washington residents who do not live in the White House showed strong liberal leanings in their votes for president and political contributions. The city also has a large number of gay households.)

Population
Community population, as reported in the 2000 census.
For more information, send us an email at [email protected], or call us, at 607-387-4181

BIG CITIES
(100,000 or more)
Boston, MA
Cambridge, MA
Berkeley, CA
Oakland, CA
San Francisco, CA
New Haven, CT
Providence, RI
New York, NY
Baltimore, MD
Seattle, WA
MEDIUM CITIES
(25,000-99,999)
Northampton, MA
Somerville, MA
Arlington, MA
Watertown, MA
Santa Cruz, CA
Alameda, CA
Ithaca, NY
Portland, ME
East Palo Alto, CA
Chelsea, MA
SMALL CITIES
(Under 25,000)
Provincetown, MA
Mount Rainier, MD
Albany, CA
Fairfax, CA
Garrett Park, MD
Orono, ME
Takoma Park, MD
Guerneville, CA
Bar Harbor, ME
Johnson, VT
MOST LIBERAL IN STATE
(For selected states)
AZ - Flagstaff
CA - Berkeley
CO - Telluride
CT - Salisbury
FL - Wilton Manors
GA - Decatur
IA - Iowa City
IL - Oak Park
KS - Lawrence
MA - Boston
MD - Mount Rainier
ME - Orono
MI - Ferndale
MN - Golden Valley
MO - Kansas City
NC - Carrboro
NH - Hanover
NJ - Montclair
NM - Santa Fe
NY - Ithaca
OH - Oberlin
OR - Lincoln City
PA - Philadelphia
RI - Providence
TX - Bellaire
VA - Baileys Crossroads
VT - Johnson
WA - Vashon
WI - Madison

0 Replies

Herr Diest wrote:

Oh don't spoil the meme Cyclo. Conservatives count on being able to discredit anyone from Berkeley as being dismissably liberal. That is until someone conservative from their speaks, then they want it to mean more than normal...
******************************************************************

Diest, like Cyclops, is also completely ignorant. The evidence is above, but Fascists like Diest don't believe evidence--only slogans--Change--change --change--Heil Barack!

*********************************************************************

The morons on the left will trot out Gallup ONLY when the poll shows a leaning to the left. Diest has no integrity or he would respond to the Gallup Poll that shows that the majority of US citizens are Pro-life.

Diest, who has the same mentality as the Nazis, simply refuses to acknowledge the evidence which shows that BERKELEY IS INDEED THE MOST LIBERAL PLACE IN CALIFORNIA.

Because of this, I must regretfully conclude that Diest is an ignorant scumbag.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Dr. Williams as you posted is a professor of Economics at George Mason University--I believe he was department head for awhile. He writes a widely published syndicated column, has been featured in numerous scholarly journals, and has written a number of books. He has been called as an expert witness before Congress a number of times, is often a guest on various television shows, both conservative and liberal, and substitutes now and then as a radio talk show host. He is quite a philanthropist and serves on a number of charitable boards as well as conservative/libertarian think tanks. He is staunchly libertarian.

Why do you ask?

Does Professor Williams have any expertise in American law? I wonder if Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts would agree with Williams that the role of a supreme court justice is merely to be a "referee."

2 Replies

OBAMA IS ACTING IN VIOLATION OF USA LAW TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES WHICH VIOLATE USA LAW

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, or remove him in a special election. He is leading the transfer of the wealth of those persons and organizations who lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully 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. Failure--or excessive delay--to take this necessary first step will guarantee the transformation of our country from a Constitutional Republic to a dictatorship. Or, we have to convince two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution to permit more than half the state legislatures to call for a special election of President and Congress.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article II
Section 1.
...
The President …
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
…
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

I wonder if Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts would agree with Williams that the role of a supreme court justice is merely to be a "referee."

I don't know about Scalia or Thomas, but Roberts said so pretty explicitly in his senate confirmation hearing:

Quote:

Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them.

The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.

But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

That's depressing to hear.

0 Replies

So concocting a new rule out of the constitution, the "right to privacy," that sounds like not applying a rule but instead making up a new one. Kind of like the umpire saying - uh, you can't tag a runner on his stomach or some such thing, something totally made up that isn't in the rule book.

4 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

So concocting a new rule out of the constitution, the "right to privacy," that sounds like not applying a rule but instead making up a new one. Kind of like the umpire saying - uh, you can't tag a runner on his stomach or some such thing, something totally made up that isn't in the rule book.

Sort of like executive privilege? That's not found anywhere in the Constitution. It is a new rule made up from interpretations. But I doubt you wish to see THAT one removed.

The authorities in Baseball have changed the rules several times, when there was good reason shown to do so. You used to be able to bean people with the ball in order to get them out... they made up a rule, that wasn't in the book, outlawing that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

How is a right to privacy "concocting a new rule?"

Have you ever actually read the constitution?

Amendment IV, ratified December 15, 1791:

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.

It is upon the fourth amendment that the concept of a right to privacy is based, and a damned good thing for you and every one of us that this is so.

2 Replies

@okie,

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

0 Replies

Oh sure, just keep hittin' the poor sap with passages from the constitution . . . let's all pile on . . .

To quote Eddie Murphy, the mind is a terrible thing . . .

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

How is a right to privacy "concocting a new rule?"

Have you ever actually read the constitution?

Amendment IV, ratified December 15, 1791:

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.

It is upon the fourth amendment that the concept of a right to privacy is based, and a damned good thing for you and every one of us that this is so.

I don't see anything in there about the right to privacy. Its all made up. It says "unreasonable," which means you cannot commit crimes and claim a right to privacy, its all a total crock, made up by justices looking for something. A lawyer can make 2 + 2 = 5 if he wants to, but that doesn't make it sound law. The "right to privacy" is not sound constitutional reasoning, as applied to abortion, any dope can see that.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Setanta wrote:

How is a right to privacy "concocting a new rule?"

Have you ever actually read the constitution?

Amendment IV, ratified December 15, 1791:

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.

It is upon the fourth amendment that the concept of a right to privacy is based, and a damned good thing for you and every one of us that this is so.

I don't see anything in there about the right to privacy. Its all made up. It says "unreasonable," which means you cannot commit crimes and claim a right to privacy, its all a total crock, made up by justices looking for something. A lawyer can make 2 + 2 = 5 if he wants to, but that doesn't make it sound law. The "right to privacy" is not sound constitutional reasoning, as applied to abortion, any dope can see that.

So you agree that there is no 'executive privilege?' That was 'made up' in entirely the same fashion you claim the right to privacy is.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

I'll certainly accept the concept of that being seen by any dope . . .

The first ten amendments to the constitution were written by the First Congress, and sent to the states by Frederick Muhlenberg, the first Speaker of the House of Representatives. No "justice" had a thing to do with it. Only someone with exceptionally poor reading comprehension skills would assume that Amendment IV means that you can't commit a crime and then claim a right to privacy.

You still haven't dealt with OE's quote of Amendment IX of the constitution. I await your response with breath abated . . .

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know