Conservative Positions

Just don't try to impress me of Kerry's sincerity or virtue on that issue.

Read. Read. Read...Write. Write.Write...so many topics, so little time.

In reading the last several posts I'm reminded(warning age dating, age dating)that I watched a program where a frog had a magic wand. The host would cry "Hit the magic twanger froggy" The frog would and everything would be okay.

I believe that was "pluck your magic twanger Froggy" and it was yelled out by the kids in the audience. (Andy's Gang)

If I had the magic twanger I would wave it and all the bad stuff would go away and all the good stuff would remain. This magic would take care of the messy stuff required to accomplish the task.

In reading the last several posts, most would agree with the "end result", and most know that it could never be achieved in the political domain.

Keeping the magic twanger handy, assume for a moment that it could bypass that political problem, it would plunge the world into such chaos I fear that anarchy would result.

Sorry, unfortunately I'm in overwhelm. I really want to know the conservative positions, so I started this post, now I realize that what I thought was a microdot sized issue is really the entire body politic.

There are no answers, just labels. Foxfyre put it plainly, which I appreciate, those principles supported by conservatives. Cyclo claimed those same ideals for the other side.

I've lost my vision in this thread, I'm back to "they said vis they said" or "spitting" posts about one persons candidate vis the other persons candidate.

Here is what I was attempting to do:

A Plan for America: The blending of Liberal and Conservative Thought.

One: decide what are all the issues, list everything. No discussion, just list the issues.

Two: Break the issues into conservative and liberal positions(i.e., this posting)

Three: Resolve each issue based upon liberal or conservative position. No discussion, just this is how liberals solve the issue; this is how conservatives solve the issue.

Four: Resolve the issue by compromise between both points of view.

In my view politics is the "art of the possible" and "the art of compromise" so the last goal is attainable. It requires respect, learned reasoning, and the conviction that no one person/group/political/religious has a lock on the truth, the spirit, or what it all means.

We are eating from the same bowl of soup and all I'm asking is that no one spit in it.

So where do I go from here? I must think.

Here is what I was attempting to do:

A Plan for America: The blending of Liberal and Conservative Thought.

One: decide what are all the issues, list everything. No discussion, just list the issues.

Finn/Foxfyre.

Thanks. Foxfyre, again you have provided me with a path to study and some research topics. I will see if I can organize them into some distilled group of issues.

Thanks Finn, You are a mystery wrapped in an enigima, covered by a shield of what appears to be conservative steel. You seem to brook no promise nor compromise as if some Lefty in the past stole your girl and you have never recovered.

If Lefties stole anything from me it was my idealism. I am totally ammenable to compromise - if not I would hardly have flourished so in my business career - but I do not find my friends on the Left open to compromise. I certainly do not place any faith, whatsoever, in the promises of the Left.

However you are exactly what this thread needs. A "my way or the highway type of person." In this way we can start to identify the edge of the political world.

I am hardly so ridgid as you would suggest, but that you do suggest it confirms my opinion that you have started this thread with a liberal bias.

I try to imagine your world where all the lefty's have passed and there are only strong or ultra strong conservatives. The Federal Government only employs 1 million personnel. Most are in the military.

There are no social programs at the federal level. The Republic of the US only protects for the common defense and transportation, both of which are underfunded do the strength of the common States. There is strong segregation in all States.

Argue that you have no bias if you will, but one need only looks to the preceding comments to appreciate that the bias exists and is strong.

First of all, I have never argued that there should not be social programs at the federal level. Find where I have and I will gladly acknowledge that you are right. Secondly, why you believe it is axiomatic that if the Feds concentrated on defense and interstate commerce (for surely this is what you meant by "transportation."), that such efforts would be underfunded is beyond me. Finally, the assertion that a constrained federal government would necessisarily lead to "strong segregation" (as opposed to its weak varient) is blatantly indicative of your bias and, totally unsubstantiated. (Or perhaps you can - have at it).

Come on Finn, work with me here. What does a world(US first) look like from inside your mind?

The world inside my mind looks pretty identical to the world outside of my mind. Unlike my friends on the Left, I do not attempt to advance policy based on what I might like to believe rather than what I actually know.

Finn said:
[In reality they are a force for mischief, unintentionally perhaps but mischief nonetheless. ]

Please describe to me the conservative positions that would omit the mischief. I would tell you right now, if you could plan, develop, implement or even suggest a conservative program that was without unintentional consequences I would get on board(gee what a great incentive).

Your membership on whatever team you may or may not think exists presents no incentive for any action whatsoever. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Conservative positions omit the mischief by not being intrusive and manipulative. That is the gist of conservatism: as limited as possible governmental intrusion on the affairs of citizens. Now you may choose to counter with what you perceive as conservative intrusions into society: making abortion illegal for example. And you would be wrong here in that resistance to abortion is nothing new. Legal abortions are new. Preserving practices and behaviors that have been accepted for centuries may or may not be advisable, but it is hardly radical intrusion.

No offense, please do not take any, for I do believe that you would be a person to know, but if you do not tell me what you think, how you think, how am I to know those principles you so acerbically insert into the
thread?

This is the second time you have suggested that my contributions to this thread are acerbic. Sharp and biting they may be, but what can I tell you? I have to work with the material I'm given.

Oh yea, thanks for the correction on the Froggy thing.

Oh yea...Interesting that you could recount such an obscure cultural reference, but as interesting that you fashioned your memory around your current argument.

(FF-1.)Religious influence and/or expression in the public life.

The first amendment states that "Congress shall not establish a religion nor prohibit the free exercise of religion"

Are those 40 million or so christian voters out to change the first amendment. Are we close to a Theocracy?

According to P. Bush his religion is his own personal relationship to Jesus/God/Messiah and disavows any connection to the christian right, however he does support the "faith based initiatives". How does one determine a breach in the First Amendment?

So the simple liberal/conservative questions is: Can we agree that there should be a solid wall between religion and government.

Further, can we agree that nominating judges or establishing programs where money and politics are involved, does mix religion and government is not in alignment with the First Amendment?

GERROM RESPONSE:
I don't want to turn this into a two person thread.


And yet you felt compelled to resond.

I will respond to you because I started this to foster conservation positions discussions, something that Foxfyre has been doing, and you seemed a person that could handle that discussion given your ideas and thoughts.

I did not intend it for purposes of a review of me. What matter does it make if I'm liberal, biased or any other scoundrel ?

If you present an objective question in an objective manner, it matters not. I'm afraid I have a greater regard for your personal opinion than do you.

So lets clear the air if that will keep you in this thread for I value your input and am struggling to gain your point of view.

First let me answer what appears to be your most pressing question, that I'm a liberal, have a liberal bias or in some way connected to the lefty movement.

It is not a question

I started this thread on the basis of inquiry, in query of conservative positions because I know the left better, not that I are one. It matters not to me what label is placed upon me, for I think and reason.

Clearly you know the Left better, and clearly your have engaged in this discussion with a prejudice about conservatives. Deny this prejudice as you will , but in so doing you do nothing to support the objectivity to which you lay claim.

That I am left or right, liberal or conservative, independent, vis any of the current topics, I'm not sure which label I should adopt in order to gain an understanding of the true issues. However, a label matters not if such understanding would result in a solution and a solution would result in a better America. A solution that would exhibit both parties viewpoints as compromised solutions for a diverse population and points of view. In all it is the betterment of America and its people that such discussions take place.

Labels are immaterial. Attempting to develop an understanding of an issue(s) while holding on to a bias, is material.

I can tell you that I was raised in a strong middle class America where no one party held sway. The function of 3rd parties was to force the other two more towards the center. So if you want a label its Centrist at this point.

FINN POINT:
If Lefties stole anything from me it was my idealism. I am totally amenable to compromise - if not I would hardly have flourished so in my business career - but I do not find my friends on the Left open to compromise. I certainly do not place any faith, whatsoever, in the promises of the Left. [/color]

GERROM RESPONSE:
Then I offer to you that option, if you will state your position, I will work with you on compromise. I cannot speak for the rest of the leftys they might not be so open

I have stated my position(s). Offer your compromise.

GERROM Quote:
However you are exactly what this thread needs. A "my way or the highway type of person." In this way we can start to identify the edge of the political world.[/color]


FINN POINT:
I am hardly so ridged as you would suggest, but that you do suggest it confirms my opinion that you have started this thread with a liberal bias

GERROM RESPONSE:
My question referred to your solid conservative attitude as shown in this thread, no more, and certainly not rigidity. As to the bias, lets get beyond that. Here is your first chance to work a compromise, with a suspected lefty, can you state your conservative view so that we can discuss them? Can you see the request there to reveal examples of your conservative thought?

GERROM Quote
I try to imagine your world where all the lefty's have passed and there are only strong or ultra strong conservatives. The Federal Government only employs 1 million personnel. Most are in the military.
There are no social programs at the federal level. The Republic of the US only protects for the common defense and transportation, both of which are underfunded do the strength of the common States. There is strong segregation in all States.

FINN POINT:

Argue that you have no bias if you will, but one need only looks to the preceding comments to appreciate that the bias exists and is strong.

GERROM RESPONSE:
The larger point was a chance for you to tell me what are the conservatives positions. Below I'm again trying to prime the conservative pump. I have no idea what you think. I can tell you that I did not write this to smear your honor or integrity. I did not and never intended, in this thread or another, to place words in in anyone's mouth.

FINN POINT:
First of all, I have never argued that there should not be social programs at the federal level. Find where I have and I will gladly acknowledge that you are right. Secondly, why you believe it is axiomatic that if the Feds concentrated on defense and interstate commerce (for surely this is what you meant by "transportation."), that such efforts would be underfunded is beyond me. Finally, the assertion that a constrained federal government would necessarily lead to "strong segregation" (as opposed to its weak variant) is blatantly indicative of your bias and, totally unsubstantiated. (Or perhaps you can - have at it).

GERROM RESPONSE:
Here is the core of my question. I ask you directly to share your mind so that we might know what you think the world would look like, if fact I almost beg you to share. Tell me how you would write the question?

GERROM Quote:
Come on Finn, work with me here. What does a world(US first) look like from inside your mind?

FINN POINT:
The world inside my mind looks pretty identical to the world outside of my mind. Unlike my friends on the Left, I do not attempt to advance policy based on what I might like to believe rather than what I actually know.

GERROM RESPONSE:
The most unkind cut of all, you tell me that inside and out you're a solid conservative citizen and compare yourself to all those lefties who obviously are not, so what did that contribute to what I know about your beliefs.

Finn Quote:
In reality they are a force for mischief, unintentionally perhaps but mischief nonetheless.

GERROM Quote
Please describe to me the conservative positions that would omit the mischief. I would tell you right now, if you could plan, develop, implement or even suggest a conservative program that was without unintentional consequences I would get on board(gee what a great incentive).

FINN POINT:
Your membership on whatever team you may or may not think exists presents no incentive for any action whatsoever. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Thanks for the above. You reject my request to join a team. That's a start. Point 1.

FINN Point:

Conservative positions omit the mischief by not being intrusive and manipulative. That is the gist of conservatism: as limited as possible governmental intrusion on the affairs of citizens. Now you may choose to counter with what you perceive as conservative intrusions into society: making abortion illegal for example. And you would be wrong here in that resistance to abortion is nothing new. Legal abortions are new. Preserving practices and behaviors that have been accepted for centuries may or may not be advisable, but it is hardly radical intrusion.

Finn, your doing great. Point 2,on your conservative position, "limited as possible governmental intrusion." I agree, I agree, I agree

GERROM Quote:
No offense, please do not take any, for I do believe that you would be a person to know, but if you do not tell me what you think, how you think, how am I to know those principles you so acerbically insert into the thread?

FINN POINT:
This is the second time you have suggested that my contributions to this thread are acerbic. Sharp and biting they may be, but what can I tell you? I have to work with the material I'm given.

Thats the third. I'm not sure of the first. I don't really understand it, but the writing seems to be pointed, personal rather than on point. You know what I mean?

GERROM Quote:
Oh yea, thanks for the correction on the Froggy thing.[/color]

FINN POINT:
Oh yea...Interesting that you could recount such an obscure cultural reference, but as interesting that you fashioned your memory around your current argument.[/color]

GERROM Response:

Finally, this is your at your best and me at my worst. I have no clue as to what your last comment means.
When your as old as I am you fashion what memory you have around anything that will keep you focused, usually this is something that happened in the last two days or 60 years ago.

Okay. I did get your message in general. You are not a team player and that the government is one as limited as possible. Can we move on and simply discuss each others point of view on each of the topical issues of the day rather than trying to determine my political affiliation.

Do you care to outline your view a" limited as possible governmental intrusion" pertaining to the current issues of today?

Regards.

Hi Everyone:

Just a last note. Sorry the thread ended. It started to go somewhere and then bogged down into opinion vs opinion and that's not what I wanted or intended to accomplish.

I have gone back to my reading, with a new point of view, that no one knows exactly what conservative really means. It's like pornographic material, you know it when you see it, but you cannot define it for the public discussion.

I did get some good book leads on Conservative thought. One, about the Constitution and the First Supreme Scalia, he is an "Originalist". He views the text of the Constitution only.

Now that is what I call a Conservative Position. I want to see how that applies in the daily political world.

Currently my conjecture about conservative thought is that it does not exist in todays practical everyday political world if we strip away all the opinions about it. It is like free markets or capitalism, it is a label we attach to something we think we understand. Reality is so much different.

Of course it goes without this note, but all of what I said applies equally well to liberals

See you all later.

Regards,