Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Foxfyre]

Liberals
believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

​

​

Then conservatism is exhausted, because the bulk of politicians and average joes who call themselves conservative are eager to use state power to accomplish their ends:

Prohibition of herbs they find unsavory

Banning abortion

Police immunity from any laws

Unprovoked warfare

You talk to the average person who calls themselves conservative, and they will agree with one or more of these. And these are FAR closer to any classical definition of tyranny than the regulation of light bulbs is

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

We are NOT debating the views or emphasis of any political party or group here. We are discussing the attitudes of people as to the role of government on any given issue. Those who want the government to butt out of anything they aren't constitutionally mandated to do are usually conservatives. Those who want and encourage and approve government ordering the sort of society the liberals want are usually liberal. It is as simple as that.

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

And both the liberal and the conservative may hold the exact same standard for whether abortion is or is not a moral choice.

And I believe, as does Goldberg, that more people are rejecting the liberal point of view.

 

[Derideo_Te]

When is the last time you saw a liberal say the federal government should but out of this or that social program?

When they objected to DOMA?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Liberals
believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

​

​

Then conservatism is exhausted, because the bulk of politicians and average joes who call themselves conservative are eager to use state power to accomplish their ends:

Prohibition of herbs they find unsavory

Banning abortion

Police immunity from any laws

Unprovoked warfare

You talk to the average person who calls themselves conservative, and they will agree with one or more of these. And these are FAR closer to any classical definition of tyranny than the regulation of light bulbs is

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

We are NOT debating the views or emphasis of any political party or group here. We are discussing the attitudes of people as to the role of government on any given issue. Those who want the government to butt out of anything they aren't constitutionally mandated to do are usually conservatives. Those who want and encourage and approve government ordering the sort of society the liberals want are usually liberal. It is as simple as that.

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

And both the liberal and the conservative may hold the exact same standard for whether abortion is or is not a moral choice.

And I believe, as does Goldberg, that more people are rejecting the liberal point of view.

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

Conservatives have been campaigning for a constitutional amendment banning abortion for decades and no, that is not "calling for liberal rules to apply"!

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

The Constitution upholds the liberal concept of a right to privacy that conservatives want to subvert with fallacious "state's rights" that don't actually exist to override the federal constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

When is the last time you saw a liberal say the federal government should but out of this or that social program?

When they objected to DOMA?

Liberals didn't like DOMA that is true. But they didn't want the states to have ability to pass their own DOMA laws and have vigorously opposed those and have cheered every time a liberal judge has overturned them. The liberals wanted a much different federal law that the states would have no control over.

So it wasn't federal control of DOMA they protested. It was everything about the law that they wanted not just repealed, but replaced with what they wanted.

A conservative would most often say that the federal government should not be making any laws about marriage but that the states have full authority to do so.

 

[Spare_change]

When is the last time you saw a liberal say the federal government should but out of this or that social program?

When they objected to DOMA?

That is consistent with the description you were just given ....

 

[Spare_change]

Liberals
believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

​

​

Then conservatism is exhausted, because the bulk of politicians and average joes who call themselves conservative are eager to use state power to accomplish their ends:

Prohibition of herbs they find unsavory

Banning abortion

Police immunity from any laws

Unprovoked warfare

You talk to the average person who calls themselves conservative, and they will agree with one or more of these. And these are FAR closer to any classical definition of tyranny than the regulation of light bulbs is

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

We are NOT debating the views or emphasis of any political party or group here. We are discussing the attitudes of people as to the role of government on any given issue. Those who want the government to butt out of anything they aren't constitutionally mandated to do are usually conservatives. Those who want and encourage and approve government ordering the sort of society the liberals want are usually liberal. It is as simple as that.

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

And both the liberal and the conservative may hold the exact same standard for whether abortion is or is not a moral choice.

And I believe, as does Goldberg, that more people are rejecting the liberal point of view.

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

Conservatives have been campaigning for a constitutional amendment banning abortion for decades and no, that is not "calling for liberal rules to apply"!

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

The Constitution upholds the liberal concept of a right to privacy that conservatives want to subvert with fallacious "state's rights" that don't actually exist to override the federal constitution.

Review the Tenth Amendment ....

 

[Pogo]

When is the last time you saw a liberal say the federal government should but out of this or that social program?

When they objected to DOMA?

Liberals didn't like DOMA that is true. But they didn't want the states to have ability to pass their own DOMA laws and have vigorously opposed those and have cheered every time a liberal judge has overturned them. The liberals wanted a much different federal law that the states would have no control over.

So it wasn't federal control of DOMA they protested. It was everything about the law that they wanted not just repealed, but replaced with what they wanted.

A conservative would most often say that the federal government should not be making any laws about marriage but that the states have full authority to do so.

So Foxy -- you've made this distinction several times, here as well as in prior posts, between heavyhanded government at the federal level versus the same thing at the state level. Can you articulate why one's OK and the other isn't?

In other words if I live in Massachusetts what difference does it make if the state or the federal government is forcing me to buy health insurance? I'm under the same legal requirement either way, am I not? It's only a difference of whether the Enforcer is based in Washington or in Boston. But the end effect is the same.

?

 

[Derideo_Te]

When is the last time you saw a liberal say the federal government should but out of this or that social program?

When they objected to DOMA?

Liberals didn't like DOMA that is true. But they didn't want the states to have ability to pass their own DOMA laws and have vigorously opposed those and have cheered every time a liberal judge has overturned them. The liberals wanted a much different federal law that the states would have no control over.

So it wasn't federal control of DOMA they protested. It was everything about the law that they wanted not just repealed, but replaced with what they wanted.

A conservative would most often say that the federal government should not be making any laws about marriage but that the states have full authority to do so.

It was conservatives that wrote DOMA and passed it in Congress making it federal law.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Liberals
believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

​

​

Then conservatism is exhausted, because the bulk of politicians and average joes who call themselves conservative are eager to use state power to accomplish their ends:

Prohibition of herbs they find unsavory

Banning abortion

Police immunity from any laws

Unprovoked warfare

You talk to the average person who calls themselves conservative, and they will agree with one or more of these. And these are FAR closer to any classical definition of tyranny than the regulation of light bulbs is

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

We are NOT debating the views or emphasis of any political party or group here. We are discussing the attitudes of people as to the role of government on any given issue. Those who want the government to butt out of anything they aren't constitutionally mandated to do are usually conservatives. Those who want and encourage and approve government ordering the sort of society the liberals want are usually liberal. It is as simple as that.

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

And both the liberal and the conservative may hold the exact same standard for whether abortion is or is not a moral choice.

And I believe, as does Goldberg, that more people are rejecting the liberal point of view.

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

Conservatives have been campaigning for a constitutional amendment banning abortion for decades and no, that is not "calling for liberal rules to apply"!

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

The Constitution upholds the liberal concept of a right to privacy that conservatives want to subvert with fallacious "state's rights" that don't actually exist to override the federal constitution.

Review the Tenth Amendment ....

Where in the 10A does it give the states the power to subvert the federal Constitution?

 

[candycorn]

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

Are they the same? Or, is the difference one of degree?

Liberals believe in more state involvement then conservatives but that does not necessarily mean "substantial centralized control". Even conservatives believe in a certain amount of government control - they just choose different areas to use it - inserting the state into private decisions on abortion and marriage.

When is the last time you saw a liberal say the federal government should butt out of this or that social program? That the people should work that out and government should stay out of it?
[/quote]
Government is often the only entity that can do things like supply aid to families, ensure school loans for kids who have no collateral, etc... While churches and other organizations can do it from time to time; if you are counting on the program being there in September, with the government, you're guaranteed it will be there. If the church is running it or if you're relying on charities, the first sign of an economic downturn, church offerings and charities dry up (as they should--you take care of your family first).

That it is okay for states to have the ability to pass their own laws about social matters rather than make it a federal affair? Who don't cheer if this or that court strikes down the people's ability to implement their own beliefs and value that go contrary to the liberal beliefs and values?

We saw in the 1960's what happens when you simply allow the states to decide who can go to school and who cannot. Segregation today, tomorrow and forever or something like that.

It is the statist view that morality and equality and justice for all and programs that help people must be uniform everywhere and the only way that can be done is via federal mandates and it is wrong to allow a state or a group of people to reject that. The federal government must have the power and authority to intervene in most social concerns.

It doesn't have to be extreme. It is just the difference between how conservatives and liberals believe that the best common good is accomplished.

I think more people are going with the conservative ideas on that these days even if they don't know that such ideas fit under the conservative label.

Again, based on what objective data?

As for conservatives believing in personal responsibility....that is hilarious.

 

[Spare_change]

Liberals
believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

​

​

Then conservatism is exhausted, because the bulk of politicians and average joes who call themselves conservative are eager to use state power to accomplish their ends:

Prohibition of herbs they find unsavory

Banning abortion

Police immunity from any laws

Unprovoked warfare

You talk to the average person who calls themselves conservative, and they will agree with one or more of these. And these are FAR closer to any classical definition of tyranny than the regulation of light bulbs is

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

We are NOT debating the views or emphasis of any political party or group here. We are discussing the attitudes of people as to the role of government on any given issue. Those who want the government to butt out of anything they aren't constitutionally mandated to do are usually conservatives. Those who want and encourage and approve government ordering the sort of society the liberals want are usually liberal. It is as simple as that.

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

And both the liberal and the conservative may hold the exact same standard for whether abortion is or is not a moral choice.

And I believe, as does Goldberg, that more people are rejecting the liberal point of view.

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

Conservatives have been campaigning for a constitutional amendment banning abortion for decades and no, that is not "calling for liberal rules to apply"!

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

The Constitution upholds the liberal concept of a right to privacy that conservatives want to subvert with fallacious "state's rights" that don't actually exist to override the federal constitution.

Review the Tenth Amendment ....

Where in the 10A does it give the states the power to subvert the federal Constitution?

By definition - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

That which is not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved for the States or the people. The problem today is the usurpation of authority by the federal government, not the other way around. By dinks and dunks, the federal government - through the power or promised largesse - have subverted state authority.

 

[Spare_change]

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

Are they the same? Or, is the difference one of degree?

Liberals believe in more state involvement then conservatives but that does not necessarily mean "substantial centralized control". Even conservatives believe in a certain amount of government control - they just choose different areas to use it - inserting the state into private decisions on abortion and marriage.

When is the last time you saw a liberal say the federal government should butt out of this or that social program? That the people should work that out and government should stay out of it?

Government is often the only entity that can do things like supply aid to families, ensure school loans for kids who have no collateral, etc... While churches and other organizations can do it from time to time; if you are counting on the program being there in September, with the government, you're guaranteed it will be there. If the church is running it or if you're relying on charities, the first sign of an economic downturn, church offerings and charities dry up (as they should--you take care of your family first).

That it is okay for states to have the ability to pass their own laws about social matters rather than make it a federal affair? Who don't cheer if this or that court strikes down the people's ability to implement their own beliefs and value that go contrary to the liberal beliefs and values?

We saw in the 1960's what happens when you simply allow the states to decide who can go to school and who cannot. Segregation today, tomorrow and forever or something like that.

It is the statist view that morality and equality and justice for all and programs that help people must be uniform everywhere and the only way that can be done is via federal mandates and it is wrong to allow a state or a group of people to reject that. The federal government must have the power and authority to intervene in most social concerns.

It doesn't have to be extreme. It is just the difference between how conservatives and liberals believe that the best common good is accomplished.

I think more people are going with the conservative ideas on that these days even if they don't know that such ideas fit under the conservative label.

Virtually, in its entirety, this post is categorically false.

The federal government is NOT the only entity that can provide these 'services'. State and local governments, run by the local populace, can - and do - provide these 'services'. It is equally nonsensical to say that churches and non-profit organizations can't be depended on to provide these 'services'. They've only been doing it for 200 years. Contrary to your suggestion - the amount of charity done during 'downturns' actually rises (and, let us not forget - those are primarily funded by conservatives).

What you say in the 1960s was a federal government that responded to court cases referred up the ladder from local courts to ensure the proper interpretation of the Constitution. THAT is the way it's supposed to work.

As for conservatives believing in personal values - that is EXACTLY the difference between liberals and conservatives. We conservatives do not rely on the big, bad federal government to dictate our conscience, our religion, and our actions. Liberals, on the other hand, refuse to take personal responsibility, but instead, defer to a nanny government model where they are coddled and cared for. Liberals don't have personal values - they expect the government to dictate them.

 

[Derideo_Te]

​

Then conservatism is exhausted, because the bulk of politicians and average joes who call themselves conservative are eager to use state power to accomplish their ends:

Prohibition of herbs they find unsavory

Banning abortion

Police immunity from any laws

Unprovoked warfare

You talk to the average person who calls themselves conservative, and they will agree with one or more of these. And these are FAR closer to any classical definition of tyranny than the regulation of light bulbs is

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

We are NOT debating the views or emphasis of any political party or group here. We are discussing the attitudes of people as to the role of government on any given issue. Those who want the government to butt out of anything they aren't constitutionally mandated to do are usually conservatives. Those who want and encourage and approve government ordering the sort of society the liberals want are usually liberal. It is as simple as that.

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

And both the liberal and the conservative may hold the exact same standard for whether abortion is or is not a moral choice.

And I believe, as does Goldberg, that more people are rejecting the liberal point of view.

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

Conservatives have been campaigning for a constitutional amendment banning abortion for decades and no, that is not "calling for liberal rules to apply"!

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

The Constitution upholds the liberal concept of a right to privacy that conservatives want to subvert with fallacious "state's rights" that don't actually exist to override the federal constitution.

Review the Tenth Amendment ....

Where in the 10A does it give the states the power to subvert the federal Constitution?

By definition - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

That which is not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved for the States or the people. The problem today is the usurpation of authority by the federal government, not the other way around. By dinks and dunks, the federal government - through the power or promised largesse - have subverted state authority.

The question was where in the 10A does it give the states the power to subvert the federal Constitution?

 

[Foxfyre]

​

Then conservatism is exhausted, because the bulk of politicians and average joes who call themselves conservative are eager to use state power to accomplish their ends:

Prohibition of herbs they find unsavory

Banning abortion

Police immunity from any laws

Unprovoked warfare

You talk to the average person who calls themselves conservative, and they will agree with one or more of these. And these are FAR closer to any classical definition of tyranny than the regulation of light bulbs is

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

We are NOT debating the views or emphasis of any political party or group here. We are discussing the attitudes of people as to the role of government on any given issue. Those who want the government to butt out of anything they aren't constitutionally mandated to do are usually conservatives. Those who want and encourage and approve government ordering the sort of society the liberals want are usually liberal. It is as simple as that.

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

And both the liberal and the conservative may hold the exact same standard for whether abortion is or is not a moral choice.

And I believe, as does Goldberg, that more people are rejecting the liberal point of view.

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

Conservatives have been campaigning for a constitutional amendment banning abortion for decades and no, that is not "calling for liberal rules to apply"!

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

The Constitution upholds the liberal concept of a right to privacy that conservatives want to subvert with fallacious "state's rights" that don't actually exist to override the federal constitution.

Review the Tenth Amendment ....

Where in the 10A does it give the states the power to subvert the federal Constitution?

By definition - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

That which is not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved for the States or the people. The problem today is the usurpation of authority by the federal government, not the other way around. By dinks and dunks, the federal government - through the power or promised largesse - have subverted state authority.

Yes. It of course excessive federal control happened under various opportunists who have evolved into a permanent political class of professional politicians and bureaucrats that now form the foundation of the federal government. But without the statists and their approval of ever more and bigger and more all encompassing federal goverment, that permanent political class would have found increasing their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth much more difficult to accomplish.

I'm hoping more Americans are beginning to see that, and Goldberg is right that they are seeing the downside and negatives in that and are therefore rejecting it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Virtually, in its entirety, this post is categorically false.

The federal government is NOT the only entity that can provide these 'services'.

Candycorn never said that it was. She just said "government". She never specified only the federal government.

 

[Spare_change]

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

We are NOT debating the views or emphasis of any political party or group here. We are discussing the attitudes of people as to the role of government on any given issue. Those who want the government to butt out of anything they aren't constitutionally mandated to do are usually conservatives. Those who want and encourage and approve government ordering the sort of society the liberals want are usually liberal. It is as simple as that.

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

And both the liberal and the conservative may hold the exact same standard for whether abortion is or is not a moral choice.

And I believe, as does Goldberg, that more people are rejecting the liberal point of view.

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

Conservatives have been campaigning for a constitutional amendment banning abortion for decades and no, that is not "calling for liberal rules to apply"!

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

The Constitution upholds the liberal concept of a right to privacy that conservatives want to subvert with fallacious "state's rights" that don't actually exist to override the federal constitution.

Review the Tenth Amendment ....

Where in the 10A does it give the states the power to subvert the federal Constitution?

By definition - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

That which is not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved for the States or the people. The problem today is the usurpation of authority by the federal government, not the other way around. By dinks and dunks, the federal government - through the power or promised largesse - have subverted state authority.

The question was where in the 10A does it give the states the power to subvert the federal Constitution?

To which I responded that it is NOT the states that have subverted the Constitution, it is the federal government.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

We are NOT debating the views or emphasis of any political party or group here. We are discussing the attitudes of people as to the role of government on any given issue. Those who want the government to butt out of anything they aren't constitutionally mandated to do are usually conservatives. Those who want and encourage and approve government ordering the sort of society the liberals want are usually liberal. It is as simple as that.

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

And both the liberal and the conservative may hold the exact same standard for whether abortion is or is not a moral choice.

And I believe, as does Goldberg, that more people are rejecting the liberal point of view.

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

Conservatives have been campaigning for a constitutional amendment banning abortion for decades and no, that is not "calling for liberal rules to apply"!

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

The Constitution upholds the liberal concept of a right to privacy that conservatives want to subvert with fallacious "state's rights" that don't actually exist to override the federal constitution.

Review the Tenth Amendment ....

Where in the 10A does it give the states the power to subvert the federal Constitution?

By definition - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

That which is not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved for the States or the people. The problem today is the usurpation of authority by the federal government, not the other way around. By dinks and dunks, the federal government - through the power or promised largesse - have subverted state authority.

Yes. It of course happened under various opportunists who have evolved into a permanent political class of professional politicians and bureaucrats that form now form the foundation of the federal government. But without the statists and approval over ever more and bigger and more all encompassing federal goverment, that permanent political class would have found increasing their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth much more difficult to accomplish.

I'm hoping more Americans are beginning to see that, and Goldberg is right that they are seeing the downside and negatives in that and are therefore rejecting it.

Where did Goldberg address this imaginary "permanent political class"? Where was it mentioned in the OP?

 

[Spare_change]

Virtually, in its entirety, this post is categorically false.

The federal government is NOT the only entity that can provide these 'services'.

Candycorn never said that it was. She just said "government". She never specified only the federal government.

Now, you are nitpicking a grammatical faux pas. It is clear from all the previous posts that the federal government is what is in question. Candycorn has been very explicit about here reliance on the federal government. Just because she didn't explicitly say it THIS TIME doesn't change the trend of her conversation.

Get back on the subject.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Conservatives have been campaigning for a constitutional amendment banning abortion for decades and no, that is not "calling for liberal rules to apply"!

The Constitution upholds the liberal concept of a right to privacy that conservatives want to subvert with fallacious "state's rights" that don't actually exist to override the federal constitution.

Review the Tenth Amendment ....

Where in the 10A does it give the states the power to subvert the federal Constitution?

By definition - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

That which is not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved for the States or the people. The problem today is the usurpation of authority by the federal government, not the other way around. By dinks and dunks, the federal government - through the power or promised largesse - have subverted state authority.

The question was where in the 10A does it give the states the power to subvert the federal Constitution?

To which I responded that it is NOT the states that have subverted the Constitution, it is the federal government.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Virtually, in its entirety, this post is categorically false.

The federal government is NOT the only entity that can provide these 'services'.

Candycorn never said that it was. She just said "government". She never specified only the federal government.

Now, you are nitpicking a grammatical faux pas. It is clear from all the previous posts that the federal government is what is in question. Candycorn has been very explicit about here reliance on the federal government. Just because she didn't explicitly say it THIS TIME doesn't change the trend of her conversation.

Get back on the subject.

Onus is on you to prove that was what she meant.

As far as the subject goes the OP is about the farcical premise that "liberalism" is "exhausted" so it is ironic to accuse others of being "off topic".