AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

It is confiscation whether I or anybody else agrees to it if the government has the power to take my property and exercises that power.

I do not agree for my property to be confiscated to give to some enterprising person to study whether pigeons follow the same economic principles as humans. (Yes, our tax dollars, more than a hundred thousand of them, went to such a study.) I do not agree for my property to be confiscated so that somebody who does not choose to work doesn't have to. I do not agree for my property to be confiscated to fund or favor people, organizations, projects, and/or programs that are targeted for tax dollars so that the fame, fortune, power, job security, and finances of government leaders are increased but which do not benefit most Americans and in fact may be contrary to their legitimate interests.

There is no way that the study of pigeons and economic prinicples can be said to promote the general welfare or provide for the common defense or is necessary for the administration of required functions of government.

You would need to provide specific examples to make a judgment like that. All conservatives do not see eye to eye on every single subject nor are all conservatives MACs as we have defined that. The fact that everybody does not march in lockstep on any specific issue does not negate the validity of the issue or the implications of Constitutional interpretations.

Quote:

Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government can print currency?

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

You seem to think that you are worse off if your tax money is used to make loans to banks as part of the national recovery plan. How are you worse off financially because of that?

Article I. Section 8.
... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.
... To establish Post Offices and post Roads.

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Given that the President, Congress, their informed advisors, the U.N., and most national leaders were essentially unified in believing that Saddam Hussein was a threat to US security and/or interests

Isn't it a bit too soon to falsify history?

I don't think I've falsified history in the least, but you're welcome to rebut my statement if you can.

It's amazing all the stupid stuff you read into things that nobody ever said.

Foxfyre wrote:

It's amazing all the stupid stuff you read into things that nobody ever said.

It's called 'analysis.' You might want to try it before posting sometime, so as to avoid being embarrassed on the thread several times in the same day.

Cycloptichorn

* * * Did he know he didn't believe those things when he said them? Or was he trying to convince himself?

Did Hitler believe what he said in his self-promoting speeches? Or was he trying to convince himself?

But there are clues in Obama's writings and in some impromptu 'slips of the tongue' as to his view of the world. . . .

Mein Kampf . . . I wonder if there aren't clues as to how Hitler might govern there.

Mein Kampf . . . I wonder if there aren't clues as to how Hitler might govern there.

My tax money is tangible property. When the feds spend that and borrow much much more, they create a tangible budget deficit. That tangible budget deficit will cause higher tangible taxes, and/or will cause my tangible cost of living to increase tangibly because of consequent inflation.

The fifth amendment prohibits the federal government from taking private property without just compensation. AND it prohibits the government from taking private property without due process of law (e.g., a court trial). Private Property is tangible.

Look at Amendments I, IV, V (excluding the last two clauses), VI, and IX. They address or imply rights to intangible property.

The constitution does not say that the federal government can finance airports that aren't related to the national defense. However, the Constitution appears to imply that the feds can finance such airports, if they contribute to the regulation of commerce, or if they contribute to expanding postal services.

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Given that the President, Congress, their informed advisors, the U.N., and most national leaders were essentially unified in believing that Saddam Hussein was a threat to US security and/or interests

Isn't it a bit too soon to falsify history?

I don't think I've falsified history in the least, but you're welcome to rebut my statement if you can.

Au contraire.... Having made the claim, you're quite welcome to provide evidence that your statement is correct.... Maybe by pointing to all the statements issued by the United Nations saying that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States of America, or by explaining how the fact that just out of the European countries, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Malta, Finland, France, Austria, Greece, Ireland and Cyprus refused to participate in the "Coalition of the Willing" leads you to conclude that "national leaders were essentially unified".

Foxfyre wrote:

It's amazing all the stupid stuff you read into things that nobody ever said.

It's called 'analysis.' You might want to try it before posting sometime, so as to avoid being embarrassed on the thread several times in the same day.

Cycloptichorn

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

Mein Kampf . . . I wonder if there aren't clues as to how Hitler might govern there.

I"m sure Foxie is ready to interprest Mein Kampf for us, since we don't even come close to understanding what we read. Between Foxie and okie, we'll be historians!

It's futile to have this discussion.

Back in March, the Democratic National Committee was indignant: "Today Rush Limbaugh yet again crossed the line saying: by the time the debate on President Obama's health care plan is over, 'it'll be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care bill.' It is outrageous to demonize a patriotic Senator who has spent his life fighting so that every person has the opportunity to live the American dream."

"Tell Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele to denounce Rush Limbaugh once and for all," the DNC urged its followers. It's not clear what it means to "denounce" someone "once and for all," but whatever.

We're guessing Limbaugh's prediction (which you can hear courtesy of MediaMutters) was intended in a jocular vein, but it is now coming true, as Politico reports:

Ailing Senator Robert Byrd, one of only two to have served longer than Kennedy, suggests in an emotional statement renaming the pending health care legislation for the late Massachusetts Senator:

"In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American."

Agence France-Presse reports that the leader of the lower chamber is echoing the sentiment:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed Wednesday to push through embattled health reform legislation this year following the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, who called the effort "the cause of my life".

"Ted Kennedy's dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration," Pelosi said in a statement.

In just one post, you have changed the premise of your original statement (at the time of the invasion, Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States) to something completely different (at some point after 1991, Iraq was trying to reconstitute a WMD program). You then interpret lack of evidence against the second premise as evidence for your first statement.

Just as an example, you cite a 1998 statement by President Clinton, saying that America will deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD, as evidence that Saddam posed a threat in 2003.

It's futile to have this discussion.

...The fifth amendment prohibits the federal government from taking private property without just compensation....