AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Hold on a sec, you actually expect people to follow along with the course of a conversation and actually read what they are about?

McGentrix wrote:

Hold on a sec, you actually expect people to follow along with the course of a conversation and actually read what they are about?

I no longer expect Cyclop to do that.
We'll see if my hope that OE is capable of doing that is justified.

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Evidently you have a very odd view of what it means to "confiscate" something.

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Sure you do, in the same way that I agreed to fund the illegal invasion of Iraq. You're a citizen in a democracy. All of the laws are made in a democratic process and with the implicit agreement of the citizenry. You don't want your taxes funding pigeon studies? Move to Burkina Fasso.

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Sez who? In our system of government, the legislature makes those determinations. And if congress says that the pigeon study promotes the general welfare, then that settles the matter. You don't get to make your own determinations as to what constitutes the general welfare.

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

If you're so detached from the mainstream of conservative thought that you're not even familiar with those conservatives who oppose government regulation, then I have to question whether you're in any position to judge who is or who is not a "modern American conservative."

Foxfyre wrote:

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;

That provision permits the federal government to coin money (i.e. specie). It doesn't permit the government to print currency.

HOW BIG IS WALMART?

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart every hour of every day.

2 This works out to $20,928 profit every minute 24/7!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St.Patrick's Day (March 17th)
than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco +
K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the world's largest private employer.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in
mind they did this in only 15 years.

8. During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy
(including Winn-Dixie).

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super
Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.

11 This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at a
Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.

Let Wal-Mart bail out Wall Street.

Better yet . . . Let them run the damn Government

Cyclo, Seems to me like you love this circular dancing with Foxie, okie, et al.

Well I provided the dictionary definition for what I think 'confiscate' means. What do you think it means?

The Congress could use a fully democratic process to decide to draw and quarter JoefromChicago or confiscate all the possessions of JoefromChicago or force him to be Foxfyre's personal servant for the next thirty years too. You might find reason to think such democratic process was not entirely Constitutional however, wouldn't you? Even I would take exception to that.

You have the choice to shrug and let your government do whatever it wants to you. I choose to be a bit more proactive than that.

Do you honestly think it is impossible for people to disagree on any point while sharing many values on which they do agree?

Since I think you're trying to be funny here, I'll just say ha ha, good one.

Well, but when Walmart has to compete with others - like in Germany - they fail. Only the strong survive in socialism ...

Obama is overturning the U.S. Constitution, overturning the Declaration of Independence, overturning everything we believe as a country, overturning 200 some years of history. He is the revolutionary. And it's a socialist, communist revolution. We are the counter-revolutionaries, saying, 'No, we don't want change.' [more on other threads]

The feds paying for the medical care of private persons is an example of a payment that the feds are not delegated by the Constitution the power to make.

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I provided the dictionary definition for what I think 'confiscate' means. What do you think it means?

I have no problem with the dictionary definition you provided. It's the application of that definition to taxation that I find puzzling. But since you've since stated that you don't mind having the government confiscate your money -- at least for to fund those programs that you like -- I suppose it doesn't matter.

Foxfyre wrote:

The Congress could use a fully democratic process to decide to draw and quarter JoefromChicago or confiscate all the possessions of JoefromChicago or force him to be Foxfyre's personal servant for the next thirty years too. You might find reason to think such democratic process was not entirely Constitutional however, wouldn't you? Even I would take exception to that.

Of course that would be unconstitutional, but then there are specific provisions of the constitution that I can point to in support of my position. I'm just trying to find out what specific portions of the constitution you're relying on to say that funding pigeon studies is unconstitutional.

Foxfyre wrote:

You have the choice to shrug and let your government do whatever it wants to you. I choose to be a bit more proactive than that.

I don't think the government can do whatever it wants to do. But then I also don't think that the constitution says whatever I want it to say.

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you honestly think it is impossible for people to disagree on any point while sharing many values on which they do agree?

Certainly people who inhabit the conservative end of the spectrum can hold different views on particular subjects. I just want to discover which views disqualify someone from being a conservative. Apparently, support for government regulation of the banking industry isn't one of those views.

Foxfyre wrote:

Since I think you're trying to be funny here, I'll just say ha ha, good one.

I'm not being funny at all. The coinage clause only authorizes the federal government to coin specie. You can't coin a one-dollar bill. So what provision of the constitution permits the federal government to print paper currency?

the 'general welfare' of the nation is impossible to achieve without having healthy citizenry. An unhealthy nation is much less productive and inefficient; promoting the health of American workers adds productivity and wealth to America itself.

August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullagh

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday. . . .
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Federal Government, secure our rights, and otherwise leave us the hell alone!

The general welfare of the United States has and is being achieved by securing the rights of its people.

Those people who cannot afford to pay for the health care they require can nonetheless get it at almost any emergency room in the country. Or, they can purchase it via private charities such as the Salvation Army, as long as enough of us healthy ones voluntarily contribute to those charities.

Federal government healthcare regulated and purchased for other than its employees, will either be incompetent, unavailable in a timely manner to all, or eventually become too damn expensive for the people of our nation to afford (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid).