55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 10:19 am
@ican711nm,
WE FIRST HAVE TO CONVINCE ONLY A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE AND TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATE OF THE TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD UNIFORM
Quote:
Article I. Section 8. , 1st paragraph: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/

Main Entry: uni•form•ly
Function: adverb
: in a uniform manner : so as to be uniform

Main Entry: 1 uni•form
Function: adjective
1 : marked by lack of variation, diversity, change in form, manner, worth, or degree : showing a single form, degree, or character in all occurrences or manifestations
4 : consistent in conduct, character, or effect : lacking in variation, deviation, or unequal or dissimilar operation

Main Entry: uni•form•i•ty
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state or an instance of being uniform (as by conformance to one pattern or adherence to one standard) <the insistence on uniformity in religion> <a rule of uniformity that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the U.S.>
2 : the condition of having the constituent elements lacking in individuality or variability or so arranged as to give a uniform effect to the whole to which they belong; often : SAMENESS, MONOTONY

Quote:
Article VI., last paragraph: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;

Quote:
Article I. Section 2.: last paragraph, The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Quote:
Article I. Section 3., last two paragraphs: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 05:48 pm
@ican711nm,
I think you first have to convince them you are not an idiot.
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2008 11:39 am
@parados,
WE FIRST HAVE TO CONVINCE ONLY A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE AND TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATE OF THE TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD UNIFORM
Quote:
Article I. Section 8. , 1st paragraph: ... all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Quote:
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/
Main Entry: 1 uni•form
Function: adjective
1 : marked by lack of variation, ... showing a single form, degree, or character in all occurrences or manifestations
4 : ... lacking in variation, deviation, or unequal or dissimilar operation

Main Entry: uni•form•i•ty
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state or an instance of being uniform ... <a rule of uniformity that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the U.S.>
2 : the condition of having the constituent elements lacking in individuality or variability ...

Quote:
Article VI., last paragraph: The Senators and Representatives ... and all executive and and judicial officers, ... of the United States shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;

Quote:
Article I. Section 2.: last paragraph, The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Quote:

Article I. Section 3., last two paragraphs: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. ... Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office ...

parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2008 01:03 pm
@ican711nm,
Strike 2
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2008 01:25 pm
@ican711nm,
THE CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO CONVINCE A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE AND TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATE OF THE TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD UNIFORM WILL BE THE PROBABLE FAILURE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE YEAR 2084.

Lord Woodhouselee circa 1778 wrote:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage.


The American democractic republic cannot continue to exist as a permanent form of government, if the lower income American voter majority continue to vote for representatives that transfer the money--put in the public treasure by the higher income American voter minority--to lower income American voters. Lower income American voters have been encouraged to do just that since that 1913 adoption by their Congress of a progressive tax. Congress chose to tax the dollars of income of the more wealthy at a higher rate than they tax the dollars of income of the less wealthy. From that 1913 moment on, the majority has, with too few exceptions, voted for candidates promising them the most money from the public treasury, with the result that our democratic republic began its collapse over loose fiscal policy leading inexorably to a future dictatorship.

The history of the world's previous republics shows they rarely existed for more than two hundred years. These republics progressed through bondage to spiritual faith, to great courage, to liberty, to abundance, to selfishness, to complacency, to apathy, to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage.

Do Americans have to also replicate that cycle? Are we condemned to decide there is nothing we can do to avoid duplicating the results of that cycle? Are we therefore really going to decide there is nothing we will do about it.

I say that even if we now perceive the probability infinitesimal that we can succeed avoiding that cycle, we would be idiots not to make the effort anyhow, and take the chance of learning that probability is not infinitesimal, if we dedicate ourselves to avoiding that cycle.

The lives of our progeny are depending on us.

parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 08:06 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:
The history of the world's previous republics shows they rarely existed for more than two hundred years. These republics progressed through bondage to spiritual faith, to great courage, to liberty, to abundance, to selfishness, to complacency, to apathy, to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage.


Out of curiosity, which republics are you referring to?


The quote by the good Lord lists "democracies" and is easy to figure out. What are you referring to when you talk about "republics?" Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term "republic." It seems Switzerland has been a republic since 1648. The Roman "republic" lasted for 450 years. Venice is listed as a republic for 1100 years.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 10:19 am
Hey ICan, this one's for you - a Republican slipped up and said the truth for once.

Quote:
Whoops! Top Republican Admits That GOP Is Running "Ministry Of Truth" Against Obama
By Eric Kleefeld - August 26, 2008, 11:39AM

Wow -- a leading Republican appears to have just inadvertently admitted that the GOP's spin machine set up to counter Barack Obama during the convention is a propaganda machine spewing nothing but lies.

The GOPer in question is Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams, who accidentally made the admission when describing the GOP's war room in Denver set up to hammer Obama during convention week.

Wadhams described the GOP's outfit thusly to the Denver Post: "Just consider this the Ministry of Truth."

Um, as anybody who has ever read George Orwell knows, the Ministry of Truth exists to disseminate false propaganda about how great the ruling regime is, continuously rewriting both history and the present-day facts in order to maintain total control over the population.

"The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation," Orwell wrote. "These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink."


http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/whoops_top_republican_admits_t.php

Can anyone find the Orwellian information control thread?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 10:29 am
Conservatism, however, may not tell the whole truth if it is in the public interest to conceal information from enemies, but it does not advocate or defend deceiving the people to 'keep them in line' or 'supportive'. The Republican cited here almost certainly did not have anything Orwellian in mind or intended when he made the remark or else he certainly would not have made the remark.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 10:30 am
@Foxfyre,
Right, right Laughing

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  3  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 10:33 am
@Foxfyre,
Group think does not like dissenting opinions, Foxfyre. I guess I am supposed to let cyclops have his day in the sun, and let him gush and bask in his bubble of adulation and adoration of all the ceremonial goings on in Denver, designed to be a pre-coronation ceremonies for the Obamas.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 10:36 am
@okie,
Well, it's wasn't me who was describing your side's operation as a propaganda mill, so I don't know why you're bagging on me over it Laughing

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 11:04 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Group think does not like dissenting opinions, Foxfyre. I guess I am supposed to let cyclops have his day in the sun, and let him gush and bask in his bubble of adulation and adoration of all the ceremonial goings on in Denver, designed to be a pre-coronation ceremonies for the Obamas.


I think Cyclop will 'gush and babble' over the Denver goings on whether you 'let him' or not Okie. Smile But he is entitled, as we are equally entitled to enjoy the Republican convention if it is more to our liking. And, the Republicans will certainly comment on the content of the Democratic Convention as will the Dems comment on the Republican convention.

My only issue with Cyclop's post was not with Cyclop perse, but the dishonest characterization that the writer drew from a statement.

My point regarding that was in the politics of personal destruction--assigning unintended thoughts and intent into comments or actions for which there is no substantiation. I do not think that is a modern Conservative trait. I do see it as contemptible.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 11:29 am
@Foxfyre,
Surely you realize that your side does it, though, with reckless abandon? No phrase uttered by Obama is untwistable by the propaganda masters in your party.

I just thought it was funny, that someone could use that term without understanding the historical context. The term has a real meaning, and I think it's as safe to assume that the utterer knew that meaning as it is that he didn't.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 12:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Surely you realize that your side does it, though, with reckless abandon? No phrase uttered by Obama is untwistable by the propaganda masters in your party.

I just thought it was funny, that someone could use that term without understanding the historical context. The term has a real meaning, and I think it's as safe to assume that the utterer knew that meaning as it is that he didn't.

Cycloptichorn


What side is that? I am defending conservatism which does not condone or support such tactics. Something does not have historical context unless it is said within such historical context and history cannot claim to be the sole respository of the meaning of a phrase. It was dishonest to place the comment within such a context when it was clearly not intended to be within that context.

Wrong is wrong no matter who does it or how many times. The 'whose is blackest' or 'he did it first' or 'they do it too' doesn't cut it to get to the truth of anything.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 12:17 pm
@parados,
Parados, I use the words "republic" and "representative democracy" interchangeably.

Lord Woodhouselee, circa 1778, wrote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. ..."

I think that in that quote, Lord Woodhouselee used the term "democracy" to include "representative democracy," which today is also called a "republic" per the following quotes:
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/
Main Entry: de•moc•ra•cy
...
1 a : government by the people : rule of the majority b (1) : a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly (as in the ancient Greek city-states or the New England town meeting) -- called also direct democracy (2) : a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority in which the people choose their officials and representatives at periodically held free elections -- called also representative democracy
2 : a community or state in which the government is controlled by the people; specifically : a state in which the supreme power is held and exercised directly by the people rather than by their elected agents <in a democracy the people meet and exercise their government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents -- James Madison> -- compare REPUBLIC

Main Entry: 1re•pub•lic
...
2 a (1) : a government characterized by having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation or state) having such a form of government <the republic of England, Scotland, and Ireland under Oliver Cromwell -- E.E.Reynolds> <the republics of South America have been the happy hunting ground of dictators -- L.A.Mills> <the ancient Roman republic> b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law : REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
...
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 12:35 pm
@ican711nm,
THE CONSEQUENCE OF AMERICAN CITIZENS FAILING TO CONVINCE A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE AND TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATE THAT THE WORD UNIFORM IN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS PROGRESSIVE TAXES, WILL BE THE PROBABLE FAILURE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE YEAR 2084.

The American representative democracy or republic cannot continue to exist as a permanent form of government, if the lower income American voter majority continues to vote for representatives that transfer taxes paid by the higher income American voter minority to the lower income American voter majority. The lower income American majority has been voting that way since 1913 when the American Congress adopted the new income tax law specifying a progressive income tax .

The pre 1778 history of the world's representative democracies or republics shows that they soon failed after their representatives started transferring increasing portions of taxes paid by the wealthier minority to the less wealthy majority.

Are we Americans really going to replicate that history? We Americans would be fools if we did not at least try to avoid that by eliminating progressive taxation on income or on anything else..

Our progeny are depending on us.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 12:35 pm
@ican711nm,
I'm rather sure that no-one has doubts about e.g. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland being a democracy.
But its a (constitutional) monarchy. Even at Lord Woodhouselee's times.

Btw: the "republic of England ..." in your quote above was the "Commonwealth of England", a republican government which ruled first England (including Wales) and then Ireland and Scotland from 1649 to 1660.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 12:44 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
The pre 1778 history of the world's representative democracies or republics shows that they soon failed after their representatives started transferring increasing portions of taxes paid by the wealthier minority to the less wealthy majority.


Could you give examples here? For instance for the United Kingdom and Switzerland?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 01:34 pm
@ican711nm,
Iraq was a republic prior to the US invasion. Russia is a republic. China is a republic. North Korea is a republic. "Republic" is not restricted to "representative democracy."

The normal usage of "republic" is any government not headed by a monarch. See your definition.
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 04:54 pm
@ican711nm,
Yes, and our progeny learn very young these days that caps lock almost always makes you look like an idiot.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 09/22/2024 at 05:18:23