55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 05:19 pm
@joefromchicago,
The biggest problem about any issue the conservatives love to march out is that they "believe" in them. Their primary goal is to instill fear in the average American, but many are now wising up!
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 05:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,


Obama's primary goal is to instill fear in the dumbmasses of liberals but many are now wising up!
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 05:35 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

They may be unconstitutional, but they still exist.

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

From that particular wiki page..
Quote:
David Frum believes that the Bakke Supreme Court case created an incentive for universities to create quotas, but pretend that they are not quotas.[2]
Rolling Eyes

As the discussion page states, it is written with an obvious point of view. It needs some serious revisions since it clearly ignores the law as written and enforced.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 07:04 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



The vast majority of Liberals support quotas... they may never admit it, but they do support them

That's funny. The vast majority of conservatives supports eating babies ... they never admit it, but they do support it.
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 07:05 pm
@joefromchicago,
Baby whats?

Some babies are quite delicious.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 07:10 pm
@H2O MAN,
What "fear" is Obama instilling?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 07:10 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

From that particular wiki page..
Quote:
David Frum believes that the Bakke Supreme Court case created an incentive for universities to create quotas, but pretend that they are not quotas.[2]
Rolling Eyes

As the discussion page states, it is written with an obvious point of view. It needs some serious revisions since it clearly ignores the law as written and enforced.

I wouldn't cite David Frum as a reliable source for anything, let alone American constitutional law.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 07:13 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Baby whats?

Some babies are quite delicious.

Immigrant babies mostly, I believe.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 07:16 pm
@joefromchicago,


How are they prepared?
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 08:32 pm
@H2O MAN,
Not very well. Most of them are taken completely by surprise.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 08:46 pm
@joefromchicago,

I'm sure these folks could prepare them just like mom used to make them.

http://www.tvguide.com/images/pgimg/hells-kitchen38.jpg

okie
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:13 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

I asked: What is: American Liberalism in 2008 and beyond?

OK, okie, good suggestion!

I'll add to my previous question: What is the mindset of the "progressive" movement in 2008 and beyond?

I will take a crack at that, ican. Without composing a textbook example based upon what other people say, or what it might have been in history, I will make a short summary of what I think it encompasses as of today.

First of all, I think Obama sort of epitomizes the progressive movement of today here in this country. It represents a philosophy of moving goal posts, without much of any kind of enduring principles, except that the government knows best, and that certain pop culture leaders such as Obama can and will devise a successful strategy as they go along. Confidence in these kinds of people, such as Obama, replaces any confidence in a God, or any moral code. Moral codes are for old fuddy duddys, to be scrapped and forgotten in the trash heaps of history, according to progressives. No principle or moral code is too sacred or considered inexpendable. After all, they are bent upon moving forward with newer and better ideas.

This philosophy also includes the belief that the constitution is a living breathing document, to be bent and re-interpreted to some kind of changing philosophy, as the world changes. The progressives are extremely egotistical, in that they believe the constitution can be made to fit a changing world that is far more enlightened than the old fuddy duddy Europeans that wrote it, and even the world can be shaped by them, the planet is in their control, and it needs saving.

A God that created it all, that still holds all things in his ultimate control is not part of their belief system. Progressives believe in mankind is all basically good, there is no good and evil exactly, and this explains why they believe evil was created and foisted upon mankind by religious zealots, and if we only place our faith in the very special visionaries, such as Obama, and he will bring a new vision and philosophy to all the world, talk nice to the so-called enemies, and they will all be changed.

In summary, progressives seek to change the goal posts, or principles, to fit their vision of the future according to how they want to make it and create it. They do not believe in enduring principles that prevent them from being all powerful, and that place constraints upon their ambitions and visions of a better world, or even a perfect world. Thus, they do not see philosophies such as socialism or Marxism, or democracies, or free markets, or any old idea for that matter as applying to them. Any ideas they have are re-packaged and sold as new and innovative, as envisioned by them, thus any reminders of what worked before are dismissed as not applicable anymore. They always believe they have the better answer for tomorrow, even if it merely consists of an old idea or a mixture of old ideas repackaged.

I perhaps have not explained it perfectly, but in my words, thats an attempt at least.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 12:10 am
Joe, the Ambulance chaser from Chicago wrote:

I wouldn't cite David Frum as a reliable source for anything, let alone American constitutional law.

end of quote

David Frum is at least ten times smarter than Joe, the Ambulance Chaser. Those of you who read these posts do not know that Joe is a fourth class ward heeler who is so down on his luck that he follows Chicago Aldermen down the street hoping they will throw away their cigar stubs.

The problem with assholes like Joe is that they do not know who their betters are.

Joe, the Ambulance Chaser, could never get close to Frum in any area of endeavor.

Note Frum's Biography--

Born to a Jewish family in Toronto, Ontario, Canada on 30 June 1960, Frum is the son of the late Barbara Frum, a well-known veteran journalist. His father, Murray Frum, was a dentist who later became a multi-millionaire as a real estate developer. David Frum's sister, Linda Frum is a journalist. David Frum is married to writer Danielle Crittenden, the stepdaughter of former Toronto Sun editor Peter Worthington.

At age 14 he was a campaign volunteer for a New Democratic Party candidate, taking an hour-long bus/subway/bus ride each way to and from the campaign office in western Toronto. He would read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, a paperback edition his mother had given him. "My campaign colleagues jeered at the book " and by the end of the campaign, any lingering interest I might have had in the political left had vanished like yesterday’s smoke."[3]

He graduated from the University of Toronto Schools in 1978 where he was the School Captain. He then attended Yale University in 1982 where he earned a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts. While at Yale he was in the Directed Studies program, a type of "Great Books" course.[4] He went on to Harvard Law School, and received his Juris Doctor (J.D.) in 1987. Frum has described one of his study methods while at law school:

When I was in law school, I devised my own idiosyncratic solution to the problem of studying a topic I knew nothing about. I'd wander into the library stacks, head to the relevant section, and pluck a book at random. I'd flip to the footnotes, and write down the books that seemed to occur most often. Then I'd pull them off the shelves, read their footnotes, and look at those books. It usually took only 2 or 3 rounds of this exercise before I had a pretty fair idea of who were the leading authorities in the field. After reading 3 or 4 of those books, I usually had at least enough orientation in the subject to understand what the main questions at issue were " and to seek my own answers, always provisional, always subject to new understanding, always requiring new reading and new thinking.[4]
He served as an editor on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal from 1989 until 1992, and then as a columnist for Forbes magazine in 1992-94. From 1994 through 2000 he was a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research.

Following the election of George W. Bush in 2000, Frum was appointed to a position within the White House. Still a Canadian citizen, he was one of the few foreign nationals working within the Bush White House. He served as Special Assistant to the U.S. President for Economic Speechwriting from January 2001 to February 2002. He filed for naturalization and took the oath for citizenship on September 11, 2007 [5].

Frum strongly supported John Roberts, George W. Bush's nominee for Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. However, like many conservatives, he opposed the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, on the grounds that she was insufficiently qualified for the post, as well as insufficiently conservative.

David Frum is now a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank, as well as the Fraser Institute, a Canadian based think tank that advocates free market policies. On October 11, 2007, Frum announced on his blog that he was joining Rudolph Giuliani's presidential campaign as a senior foreign policy adviser.[6] [7]

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

Let's compare
Frum-Yale Master of Arts Joe the Ambulance Chaser-
Malcome X college--Toilet
cleaning curriculum

Frum- Yale Law School Joe the Ambulance Chaser-
flunked out of Marshall Law
School- a fourth rate Law school

Frum-Worked for the Wall Street
Journal --Forbes- White House Joe the Ambulance Chaser-
a gofer for the Strogers.

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

Joe does a lot of huffing and puffing on these threads but he is really an ignorant boob. Anyone who reads what he wrote knows that he is a fake.

Note:
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 12:24 am
Here's what Joe the Ambulance Chaser wrote when asked by an innocent and well meaning poster about what a prospective law student should read--

When I was in the middle of my first year in law school, I saw a list of "books that every future law student should read" (granted, I should have looked for those kinds of lists before I went to law school, but that bridge has already been crossed). As I recall, the list included the two standards: IL by Scott Turow and The Bramble Bush by Karl Llewellyn. I didn't read either of those before I went to law school and I still haven't read either of them, so I can't offer any comments (I did, however, meet Scott Turow once -- nice guy).

Another book on the list was The Common Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes. I read this book many years after graduation, and I think I would have been thoroughly confused if I had read it before entering law school. Either that or I would have switched to accounting.

On the whole, I don't read books about lawyering (too much like a busman's holiday for me), and the law books that I read are more focused on technical or philosophical issues. In short, I really don't know of any good books for aspiring lawyers. Anyone have any better advice?

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

Got that? The asshole does not read--did not read-will not read!

I can list ten books for aspiring lawyers and I don't claim to be a lawyer--Only that, viewing Joe the Ambulance Chaser's flatulent offerings on these threads, I know more about law than he does.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 12:29 am
Joe from Chicago gave this advice to some poor soul.

On the other hand, if you practice IP law for a few years and then decide to switch, you'd probably have to reorient yourself. Depending on what you were doing in IP and what you'd be doing in corporate, the transition might be difficult or it might be easy. It's impossible to say.

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

Joe the Ambulance Chaser obviously knows NOTHING about real law firms and how they operate. NO TOP FLIGHT LAW FIRM WOULD AGREE TO HAVE ONE OF THEIR ASSOCIATES SWITCH FROM IP TO CORPORATE SINCE THEY WERE TRAINED IN IP.

My God, is Joe the Ambulance Chaser, stupid, or what?
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 01:02 am
Joe the Ambulance Chaser doesn't know **** about Constitutional Law. His comment below shows he never read Bakke.
quote
Re: parados (Post 3679116)
parados wrote:

From that particular wiki page..
Quote:
David Frum believes that the Bakke Supreme Court case created an incentive for universities to create quotas, but pretend that they are not quotas.[2]

As the discussion page states, it is written with an obvious point of view. It needs some serious revisions since it clearly ignores the law as written and enforced.
I wouldn't cite David Frum as a reliable source for anything, let alone American constitutional law.

end of quote.

Here is what Justice Powell said:

In summary, it is evident that the Davis special admissions program involves the use of an EXPLICIT RACTIAL CLASSIFICATION never before countenanced by this Court. It tells applicants who are not Negro, Asian or Chicano that they are totally excluded from a specific percentage of the seats in an entering class. No matter how strong their qualifications, quantative and extracurricular, including their own potential for contribution to educational diversity, they are never afforded the chance to compete with applicants from the preferred groups for the special admission seats. At the same time, the preferred applicants have the opportunity to compete for every seat in the class.

SO, THE COURT OUTLAWED RACIAL QUOTAS.

But in 2003, the court again took up the issue of Affirmative Action in Grutter vs. Bollinger.

The most ignorant Joe the Ambulance Chaser denigrates Mr. Frum BUT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY FRUM IS WRONG IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE BAKKE CASE CREATED AN INCENTIVE FOR UNIVERSITIES TO CREATE QUOTAS BUT PRETEND THEY ARE NOT QUOTAS.


The Michigan Law School Dean certainly set up quotas which were not really quotas AS FRUM said.

If Joe the Ambulance Chaser had ever read_Grutter vs, Bollinger, he would have noted that the Admissions Dean "testified that he did not direct his staff to admit a particular percentage of number of minority students but RATHER TO CONSIDER AN APPLICANT'S R A C E ALONG WITH ALL OTHER FACTORS."

He also testified that "at the height of the admissions season, he would frequently consult the so-called "daily reports" that kept track of the racial and ethnic composition of the class". He said he sought "to ensure that a critical mass of UNREPRESENTED MINORITY STUDENTS WOULD BE REACHED SO AS TO REALIZE THE EDUCATION BENEFITS OF A DIVERSE STUDENT BODY."

Anyone who reads Bakke and Grutter knows that Frum was correct in his statement. It is only ignorant morons like Joe the Ambulance Chaser who spew throw away lines that mean nothing.



genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 01:12 am
Okie wrote:

This philosophy also includes the belief that the constitution is a living breathing document, to be bent and re-interpreted to some kind of changing philosophy, as the world changes. The progressives are extremely egotistical, in that they believe the constitution can be made to fit a changing world that is far more enlightened than the old fuddy duddy Europeans that wrote it, and even the world can be shaped by them, the planet is in their control, and it needs saving.
*********************************************************

Exactly-Okie!! And with Obama in office, we are nearing the rise of incredible centralized power in one man which the founders never would have agreed to---Note the commentary made by one-Robert Yates- A delegate to the Constitutional Convention inNewYork who participated in the Federalist Papers under the name of Brutus__

quote:

"Perhaps nothing could have been better conceived to facilitate the abolition of the state governments than the constitution of the judicial. They will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by INSENSIBLE DEGREES."
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 08:34 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
I'm sure these folks could prepare them just like mom used to make them.

You're lucky that conservatives don't eat their own young.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 09:04 am
Does this story represent a normal step in the evolution from liberal to conservative??? "Robin of Berkeley" is back with more on her conversion to conservatism:
Quote:
Why Do Liberals Bleed?
(By Robin of Berkeley, American Thinker, June 17, 2009)

I've been thinking about learning how to fire a gun, maybe even buying one. Now if you are a lifelong conservative, Red State dweller, and NRA member, you might be thinking, "Big yawn. What's next? She'll be telling us what she had for breakfast?"

So let me try to convey to you the enormousness, the Alice in Wonderland quality of my even posing the question, something I've never, ever considered in my life. No one I know owns a gun. I've never seen a gun (well on a holster of a police officer but I never wanted to get up close and personal with it). I have given lots of good money over the years for gun control. Learning to fire a gun seems as ludicrous as deciding to take up brain surgery.

But, I am rethinking absolutely everything. There is not a single thing that I believed, that I held absolute and holy, that is not up for grabs. My brain is in a tizzy 24/7 and I don't know if up is down, or if east is west.

And the thought about a gun just came to me last week when I was listening to talk radio. A caller related how an armed citizen in the South stopped a take over robbery in a fast food restaurant. A light went on in my head. Suddenly I realized that the Red States may be on to something: the police are strongly supported, the citizens have guns, and, therefore, the gangsters may be a little reluctant to take over the local Burger King.

Contrast that to the Blue States where few liberals own guns and the police are being emasculated. You may have heard of the horrendous case in Oakland where four cops were killed by a known felon, on a parole violation for child rape. But the powers that be in Oakland sent out the message to the police to make nice and not scare the populace, so the officers never drew their guns when approaching this felon. (Anyone else notice how the Left is slowly but surely disarming the police and military, situation-by-situation?) When I expressed my heartfelt grief to a friend about the deaths of these brave officers, he said, "The man who shot them was a human being too."

(I'd like to say that, as a psychotherapist, I responded in a sophisticated and psychologically crafty manner. No such luck. I almost blew a gasket, turned bright red, and said with barely contained anger, "He lost his claim to be human when he raped a child." To the friend's credit -- and perhaps some fear on his part -- he shut up.)

So what I realized during the talk show is that in places like Berkeley, only the criminals have the power. Not only do they have the power of guns, they are supported by several thousand brainwashed zombies who give the green light to criminals because they are the victims of someone else's "privilege" and "supremacy" and "imperialism." (Although I was a leftist until recently, I was the rare exception: I never excused crime because of the bad guy's race, creed, age, sex, or daddy being a meanie.)

I recall vividly what a Berkeley police officer once told me:
"Berkeley is a city of victims. You try to understand the street people and the criminals and sit down and talk to them and then they hit you on the head and steal your purse. The police come and then you refuse to press charges. The criminals know this and prey on you."

And he's right: almost everyone I know has been a victim of some awful crime, from being in restaurants during takeover robberies (not uncommon here), to being robbed at gunpoint, to being assaulted for no other reason except a thrill for the assailants. A neighbor, who had lived all over the world, once said to me, "Berkeley is the most dangerous place I've ever lived." Her husband was robbed at gunpoint as were almost all her friends. She couldn't wait to get out of here.

I wish I could say I'm an exception to the victim rule. But several years ago I was coming out of a restaurant in a decent area and was mugged. As Gavin de Becker states in his seminal book, The Gift of Fear, (which I, unfortunately, read after the fact), victims generally sense when they're about to be victimized but ignore the signs in order to be nice and not judgmental. This was my situation exactly. I could tell right away that the guy looked sinister. But it was a major street, at high noon, and I didn't want to seem racist, so I turned the corner a few feet to reach my car, and a minute later, had my purse stolen as well as all my feelings of being safe in the world.

I'll spare you (and me) the horrible details, but the incident ended with my having a broken nose and two black eyes, and needing surgery for the nose several days later. People wrote bad checks and stole rental cars in my name for a year afterwards. I developed a fear not only of people, but of the phone and the mail, as every day was another reminder of what happened.

Witness the response of a left wing friend, Judy, when I told her I was mugged. She said, and I quote, "I don't think what you went through was so bad. And anyway he was a victim too." (Maybe it's a good thing I wasn't armed back then.)

So I'm asking myself whether I should become armed, and I'm also wondering why so many "educated" people (I might have just answered my own question) put up with crime infested streets? Why are the biggest protests against the cops? Why are the innocent viewed as guilty, and the guilty innocent? Why is no one up in arms about liberals literally bleeding?

Then it occurred to me: Stockholm Syndrome, the same brainwashing that turned Berkeley resident Patty Hearst into Tania the bank robber. She was tortured, sexually abused, and kept in isolation by the far left group, the Symbionese Liberation Army (kissing cousins of Bill and Bernadine's Weather Underground). Successfully brainwashed, she joined their twisted and sick "army."

In the real Stockholm, the hostages were locked in a vault for days, came to "love" their captors in that perverted way that an abused woman loves her husband, and refused to testify against them in court. One even became engaged to her captor.

SS (good acronym, huh?) is rooted in a basic, primordial instinct for self protection in the wake of extraordinary trauma and terror. To survive, the victim identifies with the captors and merges psychologically with them. But SS takes on a life of its own when victims stop seeing their own humanity and want only to serve the abuser.

Living in places like Berkeley, being force fed propaganda, with police afraid to protect you, your friends unsympathetic, and no one armed, SS can spread like a virus. What starts out as compassion morphs into complicity. Occasionally there may be someone, like me, who snaps out of the trance they've been in for decades. After all, Tania woke up and became Patty Hearst again and, interestingly, married her bodyguard. (I bet that they own a whole lot of weapons.) But she had to leave Berkeley for a leafy, sheltered life elsewhere to do this.

But then again, I never bought into the notion of collective guilt, that groups of people are guilty because of the color of their skin, and individuals are exonerated because of some protected victim status. I'm the rare bird. In Berkeley, most people are so over identified with their ideology, that their logical, questioning minds have flown the coop along with a God-given knowledge, possessed by every 5 year old, of right and wrong.

As a good, loyal liberal, I always expected others to take care of me. If I gave my unqualified loyalty to the system, I could sleep well at night. But now, with victims left bleeding, a dangerously naive government, and sheep like masses, I see the absurdity of my thinking.

I heard a philosopher once say that one of the biggest existential tasks of life is giving up the fantasy of the ultimate rescuer. Liberalism reinforced this fantasy for me, as it does for so many others. Now I see the truth: We come into this world alone, and we will leave it alone. When we live our lives in the back seat of the car expecting Daddy to drive us, we only have a child's view of the world.

On that very dark day in November years ago when I became an object of someone's evil and inhumanity, I glimpsed a truth I never wanted to see: that there really is no protection, not in the way I had always thought, not by other flawed humans. I didn't know what to do with this insight until 1 1/2 years ago when I discovered that there were others out there like me, that there was something called conservatism, and now slowly but surely the pieces are coming together for me, one by one.

As I continue on the path to independence and personal responsibility, perhaps looking to myself for protection is another step on my journey.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 09:33 am
It's drivel, of course. Many Americans, who are alleged by the reactionaries to be "liberal" own guns, and know their use. My grandfather taught me firearms safety when i was about eight or nine years old. I qualified in the Army with the M16 (just barely, that rifle sucks), qualified expert with the M14 (love that rifle), and with the M1911 .45 automatic. I also learned to strip down and reassemble and to fire a .38 revolver, the M1 carbine and the M60 machine gun; and i was trained in the use of the M79 grenade launcher. Of course, i don't consider myself necessarily a liberal--only in the eyes of the typical American reactionary (calling them conservatives flatters them in a manner they don't deserve).

This clown is trading in brain-dead stereotypes.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.26 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 03:42:11