AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

It is the Conservative point of view that you cannot have free people if the government can take property from one citizen and use that property to enrich another citizen. When the government can do that with impunity, the people have no power and no freedom at all. Nor is there any incentive to acquire property that the government can confiscate it at will.

Well you know what Parados, I give a substantial percentage of my income to organizations that feed the hungry. I also volunteer some of my time to organizations that are making life easier for the less fortunate. Since you think it is compassionate to take whatever somebody else has to keep people from starving, how about I take what you have and give to the poor? Then you won't accuse us conservatives of being willing to let people starve and we can both be happy.

(And I can continue to know that the government is not the best vehicle to use to alleviate hunger anywhere if all it has to offer is to rob Peter and give to Paul. Okay?)

Rave on Parados. I have never suggested that the government does not have the power, authority, and justification to levy taxes.

What we are talking about here, however, is one particular conservative principle related to how that authority should be exercised and for what purposes.

You obviously are unable to grasp that concept so why don't you just quit trying? Please.

Foxfyre wrote:

Well you know what Parados, I give a substantial percentage of my income to organizations that feed the hungry. I also volunteer some of my time to organizations that are making life easier for the less fortunate. Since you think it is compassionate to take whatever somebody else has to keep people from starving, how about I take what you have and give to the poor? Then you won't accuse us conservatives of being willing to let people starve and we can both be happy.

I am fine with that. It's called taxation. We all pay them in case you didn't realize that. The constitution also requires you to pay the same tax rates I pay in case you didn't realize that as well. I am more than willing to pay part of my property in taxes to feed the poor. (I am also willing to donate money on top of what the government takes.) The problem with your argument Fox is that it has no basis in reality. The US government doesn't take all of anyone's property to feed the poor. No one pays 100% in taxes. The difference between you and me Fox is I am willing to be taxed as much as you while you want me to be taxed MORE or you think you aren't be treated fairly.

Quote:

(And I can continue to know that the government is not the best vehicle to use to alleviate hunger anywhere if all it has to offer is to rob Peter and give to Paul. Okay?)

LOL.. the same argument without any reasoning behind it. You are a one trick pony Fox. Taxation is NOT robbery.

Please be advised that I am marking this as the day that Parados has stated that it is fine for me (or the government) taking everything he has and give it to the poor just so long as we call that taxes. Hats off to Parados. That makes him the single most generous member of A2K. Few would be so noble.

Now, those who would like to declare themselves poor to take advantage of this great gift, please form a line to the left. . . .

The constitution also requires you to pay the same tax rates I pay
...
I am more than willing to pay part of my property in taxes to feed the poor.
...
No one pays 100% in taxes.

I have been completely courteous TKO and I have fully answered your questions. But I will not change the question because you can't or won't answer it or, apparently, can't even read what I wrote. Until you (and a few others) actually make a reasoned argument for your point of view rather than lamely attacking mine, I will not respond further, however. Thank you for understanding.

How is it a fact?
How is this in anyway logic based?

You are engineering the question around subjective manners.

Why does it matter how A or B made their money?
If the situation was that A made their money by exploiting others would your answer change?
What does this have to do with what A ultimately pays in taxes?
If two people As make the same money but made it from a good and a bad ethical means respectively, should they be taxed the same amount?
If not, what principle would allow you to make that distinction?
What ability does a government have to judge the morality of an individual based on the tax form they send in?
Why can't our tax system be simply about how much our income is?

I just love winning these arguments. The more non sequiturs, ad hominems, and personal insults are thrown in, the more it becomes obvious nobody has any other ammunition and the win meter just goes up, up, up.

Let the Blame Game Begin

James Carville & Paul Begala

As Barack Obama and the Democrats appear poised for an historic sweep, we have a message for our Republican friends: It is time to point fingers.

We are pro-finger-pointing. We disagree strongly with Gov. Sarah Palin who said recently, "Do you notice that our opponents sure have spent a lot of time looking at the past and pointing fingers? You look to the past because that's where you find blame, but we're...looking to the future, because that's where you find solutions." On the contrary, Governor, blame assignment, while much maligned, is essential to determining what went wrong and how to set it right. Besides, it's a hell of a spectator sport. Here's our primer for a little game we like to call Big Losers Always Make Excuses (BLAME):

First -- a couple of ground rules. You can't blame the press or minorities. Sure, media-bashing is part of the conservative catechism, and minority voters are likely to support Barack Obama in record numbers. But finger-pointing is only interesting when you point at someone on your team. Republicans need a civil war -- a steel cage death match -- to sort out what they stand for. Scapegoating outsiders won't purge the party of what's rotting it on the inside.

Here's the most important thing about finger-pointing: you have to start early. If you're a Republican who wants to avoid blame for the current meltdown, you cannot afford to wait until after the election is over.

The smartest people in the conservative movement are already pointing like a bird dog on a South Georgia quail hunt. David Brooks and Bill Kristol are leading the way. Mr. Brooks, representing the intellectual wing of the conservative movement, called Ms. Palin, "a fatal cancer to the Republican Party." Attaboy, Brooksie. Score one for the brainiacs.

Mr. Kristol, on the other hand, blames neither Ms. Palin nor Sen. John McCain, but rather McCain's campaign advisers, writing of the campaign: "Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic." See? That's how you do it. Kristol can't say McCain's problem is that he supported the Iraq war, (which Kristol advocated) or that he chose Sarah Palin (whom Kristol praised). So rather than play defense, Bill went on offense, blaming McCain's Steve Schmidt-led campaign. But we have a feeling this fight will only begin when the Schmidt hits the fan.

But where are the other voices? We need to hear, for example, from Karl Rove. Whom will he blame? We stipulate that Karl is a genius -- albeit a genius whose advice took Pres. Bush from a 91 percent approval rating down to 26. With the House of Bush ablaze, Karl is going to have to do some quick finger-pointing before they change they change his nickname from The Architect to The Arsonist.

How about Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other radio personalities? They never liked McCain much -- but his campaign cratered only when he embraced their wild attacks on Sen. Obama. It was only after Mr. McCain borrowed the Limbaugh-Hannity line on Bill Ayers, only after Gov. Palin accused Mr. Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists," that the bottom fell out for Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin. We're betting the hot air boys will blame the intellectuals. After all, if you want to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggheads.

The Republican Party is atomizing, and each faction must participate in Project BLAME. The neocons may want to blame the theocons. The economic conservatives will likely blame the big spenders. The conflagration will be so multi-dimensional we'll need a program to sort out the players. They will need to answer fundamental questions: What does it mean to be a Republican? Do Republicans support laissez-faire or nationalized banking? Do Republicans support a balanced budget or half-trillion-dollar deficits? Do Republicans want a "humble foreign policy" like George W. Bush, or preventive war against countries that pose no threat, like, umm, George W. Bush? Are Republicans the party of limited government or a vast Medicare prescription drug benefit? Are they wary of Big Brother or eager to expand warrantless wiretaps? Do they support Christian values or torture? Are they the party that believes that cutting-edge technology can shoot a missile out of the sky or the party that believes humans and dinosaurs walked the earth simultaneously?

These questions should define the 2012 GOP presidential primaries. So start blaming, all you would-be candidates. That means you, Ms. Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist. Hurry up. You only have 1,165 days left until the Iowa Caucuses.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-carville-and-paul-begala/let-the-blame-game-begin_b_136223.html

I just love winning these arguments. The more non sequiturs, ad hominems, and personal insults are thrown in, the more it becomes obvious nobody has any other ammunition and the win meter just goes up, up, up.

You obviously are unable to grasp that concept so why don't you just quit trying?

Until you (and a few others) actually make a reasoned argument for your point of view rather than lamely attacking mine,

Rave on Parados

No dear. I will say however that you have no interest in discussing John Locke's concepts

And I get tired of you distorting and misrepresenting what I've said and/or argued Parados

I will not get into an anal examination of every word and phrase with you and I don't intend to play the 'gotcha' game with you.

Now, Fox.. let me ask you again.. Is it moral for a government to let it's citizens starve?

Now then for anybody other than Cyclop, TKO, and Parados who might be interested in the actual topic here--those three (if there are actually three people involved) have made it pretty clear that they aren't interested in anything other than discrediting the topic as invalid--lets look at the Conservative view of taxes and responsibility to the poor.

I don't know if any other conservatives agree with me or not that the Constitution does not provide for or authorize any form of charity from the federal public treasury. The reason for that is pretty obvious.The line between true charity and using the public treasury to benefit the politician and/or his cronies is too thin--even invisible. Graft and corruption, or opportunity to increase one's own fortunes in public office, is inevitable and that has already been played out again and again.

Why else would somebody expend millions of dollars to get a job that pays $169,300? If one is already independently wealthy, it is probably a vanity thing or perhaps a true desire to perform public service.

But it is a rare member of Congress who serves for any length of time or gets elected President without emerging as a much more wealthy man or woman far exceeding their base salary in the House and Senate. And many, if not most, keep their positions and raise money for campaigns by promising and/or dispensing favors to those who vote for them or to garner the support of those who can otherwise benefit them.

There is some basicly wrong with that picture. And I believe it largely explains why the Federal government has become so big, so costly, so inefficient in so many ways.

Government assistance programs (food, rent and utility assistance, etc) at the local level are less susceptible to graft and corruption and I think conservatives have fewer objections at that level.

Private charities remain the most efficient and effective of all.

As repeatedly stated, taxes are necessary to fund the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government and I don't know any Conservative who objects to necessary taxes for that purpose. I do see it as morally wrong--in fact enslaving Citizen A--to confiscate Citizen A's property that he acquired legally and ethically and give that property for the exclusive benefit of Citizen B who did not earn it.

I wish other Conservatives would chime in on this, however, and explain where I am wrong if I am.

Republicanism ≠ Conservatism
William Randolph prepares to jump ship:

When I read something like this

Quote:

October 22, 2008
Congressman admits saying, 'Liberals hate real Americans'

, it makes me realize: there are only so many times I can tell people that I'm a conservative, but not that kind of conservative before it becomes clear that I'm using the wrong word. Like all words, the meaning of “conservative” emerges from a complex communal process. It's not mine to control. So do I spend the next few years putting the word in dissociative quotation marks? Or do I just let it go free, knowing that if the word does not come back, then we were never meant to be together in the first place?

It might be fun to try to keep the word for contrarian purposes, or just out of sheer stubbornness, but: what's the point?