Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Spare_change]

Conservatives are not at all against public education. Conservatives invented public education. Conservatives just don't want federal control of education.

Well, they want the government to pay for their private education, but that was never the founder's intent.

Most conservatives are for a defense strong enough to deter all enemies because preventing hostilities from starting is far preferable to war. But conservatives want fiscal accountability and prevention of a lot of unnecessary programs and expense rolled into and hidden in the defense budget.

No country with nuclear missiles has been invaded.

Conservatives are all over the block on the separation of church and state issue, but most want the federal government to follow the letter and intent of the first amendment meaning they do not presume to have any jurisdiction over where or how people acknowledge or practice their faith.

Not really though. I've never met one who was for the separation of church and state. Even such libertarians are few and far between.

I am not at all aware of any conservative objection any amendments to the Bill of Rights. Conservatives definitely object when the federal government oversteps its authority/limitations re those rights.

They don't say that they are. They use code words like "tort reform" or "homeland security" or "building a pipeline for energy independence"

It is the conservative attitudes re the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that I believe is beginning to catch on with more people who have shaken off the blurred interpretations of liberalism and are beginning to embrace the Constitution as it was originally intended.

The constitution has been amended from it's original text. And the ability to do so was indeed among their intentions.

"Well, they want the government to pay for their private education, but that was never the founder's intent."

Wrong - we want the federal government to return the usurped education monies and control to the local community.

No country with nuclear missiles has been invaded.

If there EVERY was a prime example of twisted logic in order to try to support a perverted point of view, this is it.

"I've never met one who was for the separation of church and state. Even such libertarians are few and far between."

Twisted logic - conservatives don't want the left to use the state as a tool to suppress their ability to practice their own religion. You can be atheist, if you like - but stay out of our religion.

"They don't say that they are. They use code words like "tort reform" or "homeland security" or "building a pipeline for energy independence"

Perverted logic - the ridiculous examples you cite have nothing - nada - zilch - zero - to do with interpretations of the Constitution. They ARE direct reactions to the abuse of the Constitution by the left.

"The constitution has been amended from it's original text. And the ability to do so was indeed among their intentions."

Perhaps you are aware of the conservative-driven attempt to convene a Constitutional Convention - but probably not.

 

[Foxfyre]

Apparently a rejection of liberalism isn't just an American thing based on yesterday's election in the U.K. The U.K. defines liberalism and conservatism pretty much as we do at this point in history--they are the only European country that does so I believe--and yesterday conservatives won hugely.

. . .The British electorate clearly had cold feet when it came to voting for a left-wing Socialist leader who vowed to reverse the successful economic policies of the Conservative-led government.

Miliband’s big government, heavy spending, high tax agenda failed to capture the hearts of Middle England, and British voters opted instead for the free market approach put forward by the Conservatives. The wide-reaching welfare reforms, headed by Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith, also proved popular with the British electorate. . . .

. . .The idea that Britain is becoming a more liberal country is a myth. From government spending to immigration, the U.K. has become more, not less, conservative in recent years on most key issues. . . .

5 Takeaways From the UK Election Results​

 

[Spare_change]

1. Conservatives are not "against public education' - they are against FAILED public education, and federal policies which directly contribute to that failure.

Examples?

We are not opposed to separation of church and state - we are opposed to those leftist fanatics who have so perverted the definition of separation as to directly threaten our religion.

Examples?

We believe in a 'vast' military, because we believe that the US has an inherent responsibility to try to lift up those who suffer the vile actions of dictators and tyrants, regardless of country borders.

That may be a defensible belief, but it is more Wilsonian than conservative. None of our founders held that view.

4. I assume this is some kind of tortured and convoluted reference to the Patriot Act and how conservatives believe terrorists should not be afforded the legal rights of citizens .... yep. If you don't contribute, you shouldn't get to partake. If you didn't earn it, you don't get it.

It's about Big Brother watching you.

Frankly, based on your extremist view of things, I'm not sure you're deserving of the effort to provide you examples. This is your most popular technique - applied ad nauseum - when you don't have a cogent or intelligent response, you try to divert responsibility for carrying the discussion back to the other person.

I said what I said --- prove me wrong.

But, I will comment on one thing --- your comment that the conservative position is more 'Wilsonian' than conservative. The only Wilson Doctrine I know about is the one from British MP Harold Wilson about spying on his peers. I'm pretty sure that isn't what you meant, so I wonder if you are referring to US President Woodrow Wilson's application of the Monroe Doctrine (which, frankly, I can't see the applicability there, either).

 

[Agit8r]

Wrong - we want the federal government to return the usurped education monies and control to the local community.

There is a lot of variation between districts. Obviously there is a lot more local control than federal.

If there EVERY was a prime example of twisted logic in order to try to support a perverted point of view, this is it.

Actually it is just a fact. Name a country with ICBMs that has been invaded.

Twisted logic - conservatives don't want the left to use the state as a tool to suppress their ability to practice their own religion. You can be atheist, if you like - but stay out of our religion.

That isn't a result of the separation of church and state.

Perverted logic - the ridiculous examples you cite have nothing - nada - zilch - zero - to do with interpretations of the Constitution. They ARE direct reactions to the abuse of the Constitution by the left.

Suing people for damages is not an abuse of the constitution. And there is nothing to suggest that "leftists" account for a majority of torts.

Perhaps you are aware of the conservative-driven attempt to convene a Constitutional Convention - but probably not.

I don't see what needs to be amended now. Do tell?

 

[Agit8r]

Apparently a rejection of liberalism isn't just an American thing based on yesterday's election in the U.K. The U.K. defines liberalism and conservatism pretty much as we do at this point in history--they are the only European country that does so I believe--and yesterday conservatives won hugely.

. . .The British electorate clearly had cold feet when it came to voting for a left-wing Socialist leader who vowed to reverse the successful economic policies of the Conservative-led government.

Miliband’s big government, heavy spending, high tax agenda failed to capture the hearts of Middle England, and British voters opted instead for the free market approach put forward by the Conservatives. The wide-reaching welfare reforms, headed by Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith, also proved popular with the British electorate. . . .

. . .The idea that Britain is becoming a more liberal country is a myth. From government spending to immigration, the U.K. has become more, not less, conservative in recent years on most key issues. . . .

5 Takeaways From the UK Election Results​

HA! You mentioned parties! How dare you!

 

[Foxfyre]

Apparently a rejection of liberalism isn't just an American thing based on yesterday's election in the U.K. The U.K. defines liberalism and conservatism pretty much as we do at this point in history--they are the only European country that does so I believe--and yesterday conservatives won hugely.

. . .The British electorate clearly had cold feet when it came to voting for a left-wing Socialist leader who vowed to reverse the successful economic policies of the Conservative-led government.

Miliband’s big government, heavy spending, high tax agenda failed to capture the hearts of Middle England, and British voters opted instead for the free market approach put forward by the Conservatives. The wide-reaching welfare reforms, headed by Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith, also proved popular with the British electorate. . . .

. . .The idea that Britain is becoming a more liberal country is a myth. From government spending to immigration, the U.K. has become more, not less, conservative in recent years on most key issues. . . .

5 Takeaways From the UK Election Results​

HA! You mentioned parties! How dare you!

Well the article I linked did. I didn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. Conservatives are not "against public education' - they are against FAILED public education, and federal policies which directly contribute to that failure.

Examples?

We are not opposed to separation of church and state - we are opposed to those leftist fanatics who have so perverted the definition of separation as to directly threaten our religion.

Examples?

We believe in a 'vast' military, because we believe that the US has an inherent responsibility to try to lift up those who suffer the vile actions of dictators and tyrants, regardless of country borders.

That may be a defensible belief, but it is more Wilsonian than conservative. None of our founders held that view.

4. I assume this is some kind of tortured and convoluted reference to the Patriot Act and how conservatives believe terrorists should not be afforded the legal rights of citizens .... yep. If you don't contribute, you shouldn't get to partake. If you didn't earn it, you don't get it.

It's about Big Brother watching you.

Frankly, based on your extremist view of things, I'm not sure you're deserving of the effort to provide you examples. This is your most popular technique - applied ad nauseum - when you don't have a cogent or intelligent response, you try to divert responsibility for carrying the discussion back to the other person.

I said what I said --- prove me wrong.

But, I will comment on one thing --- your comment that the conservative position is more 'Wilsonian' than conservative. The only Wilson Doctrine I know about is the one from British MP Harold Wilson about spying on his peers. I'm pretty sure that isn't what you meant, so I wonder if you are referring to US President Woodrow Wilson's application of the Monroe Doctrine (which, frankly, I can't see the applicability there, either).

Please no ad hominem SC. Address you criticisms to the member's post, not the member personally.

 

[Spare_change]

1. Conservatives are not "against public education' - they are against FAILED public education, and federal policies which directly contribute to that failure.

Examples?

We are not opposed to separation of church and state - we are opposed to those leftist fanatics who have so perverted the definition of separation as to directly threaten our religion.

Examples?

We believe in a 'vast' military, because we believe that the US has an inherent responsibility to try to lift up those who suffer the vile actions of dictators and tyrants, regardless of country borders.

That may be a defensible belief, but it is more Wilsonian than conservative. None of our founders held that view.

4. I assume this is some kind of tortured and convoluted reference to the Patriot Act and how conservatives believe terrorists should not be afforded the legal rights of citizens .... yep. If you don't contribute, you shouldn't get to partake. If you didn't earn it, you don't get it.

It's about Big Brother watching you.

Frankly, based on your extremist view of things, I'm not sure you're deserving of the effort to provide you examples. This is your most popular technique - applied ad nauseum - when you don't have a cogent or intelligent response, you try to divert responsibility for carrying the discussion back to the other person.

I said what I said --- prove me wrong.

But, I will comment on one thing --- your comment that the conservative position is more 'Wilsonian' than conservative. The only Wilson Doctrine I know about is the one from British MP Harold Wilson about spying on his peers. I'm pretty sure that isn't what you meant, so I wonder if you are referring to US President Woodrow Wilson's application of the Monroe Doctrine (which, frankly, I can't see the applicability there, either).

Please no ad hominem SC. Address you criticisms to the member's post, not the member personally.

I addressed the post, thank you very much. It was a veiled attempt to stay relevant without having anything of substance to post. You can be assured that my opinions of the poster are significantly more animated.

 

[Agit8r]

1. Conservatives are not "against public education' - they are against FAILED public education, and federal policies which directly contribute to that failure.

Examples?

We are not opposed to separation of church and state - we are opposed to those leftist fanatics who have so perverted the definition of separation as to directly threaten our religion.

Examples?

We believe in a 'vast' military, because we believe that the US has an inherent responsibility to try to lift up those who suffer the vile actions of dictators and tyrants, regardless of country borders.

That may be a defensible belief, but it is more Wilsonian than conservative. None of our founders held that view.

4. I assume this is some kind of tortured and convoluted reference to the Patriot Act and how conservatives believe terrorists should not be afforded the legal rights of citizens .... yep. If you don't contribute, you shouldn't get to partake. If you didn't earn it, you don't get it.

It's about Big Brother watching you.

Frankly, based on your extremist view of things, I'm not sure you're deserving of the effort to provide you examples. This is your most popular technique - applied ad nauseum - when you don't have a cogent or intelligent response, you try to divert responsibility for carrying the discussion back to the other person.

I said what I said --- prove me wrong.

But, I will comment on one thing --- your comment that the conservative position is more 'Wilsonian' than conservative. The only Wilson Doctrine I know about is the one from British MP Harold Wilson about spying on his peers. I'm pretty sure that isn't what you meant, so I wonder if you are referring to US President Woodrow Wilson's application of the Monroe Doctrine (which, frankly, I can't see the applicability there, either).

Please no ad hominem SC. Address you criticisms to the member's post, not the member personally.

I addressed the post, thank you very much. It was a veiled attempt to stay relevant without having anything of substance to post. You can be assured that my opinions of the poster are significantly more animated.

Aw, that's too bad. I'm didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. Conservatives are not "against public education' - they are against FAILED public education, and federal policies which directly contribute to that failure.

Examples?

We are not opposed to separation of church and state - we are opposed to those leftist fanatics who have so perverted the definition of separation as to directly threaten our religion.

Examples?

We believe in a 'vast' military, because we believe that the US has an inherent responsibility to try to lift up those who suffer the vile actions of dictators and tyrants, regardless of country borders.

That may be a defensible belief, but it is more Wilsonian than conservative. None of our founders held that view.

4. I assume this is some kind of tortured and convoluted reference to the Patriot Act and how conservatives believe terrorists should not be afforded the legal rights of citizens .... yep. If you don't contribute, you shouldn't get to partake. If you didn't earn it, you don't get it.

It's about Big Brother watching you.

Frankly, based on your extremist view of things, I'm not sure you're deserving of the effort to provide you examples. This is your most popular technique - applied ad nauseum - when you don't have a cogent or intelligent response, you try to divert responsibility for carrying the discussion back to the other person.

I said what I said --- prove me wrong.

But, I will comment on one thing --- your comment that the conservative position is more 'Wilsonian' than conservative. The only Wilson Doctrine I know about is the one from British MP Harold Wilson about spying on his peers. I'm pretty sure that isn't what you meant, so I wonder if you are referring to US President Woodrow Wilson's application of the Monroe Doctrine (which, frankly, I can't see the applicability there, either).

Please no ad hominem SC. Address you criticisms to the member's post, not the member personally.

I addressed the post, thank you very much. It was a veiled attempt to stay relevant without having anything of substance to post. You can be assured that my opinions of the poster are significantly more animated.

There was also some ad hominem in there if you look back carefully though most likely inadvertent. When you cite the members motive for his comments, that is ad hominem. No harm no foul but I have to be consistent in enforcing my own rules.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. Conservatives are not "against public education' - they are against FAILED public education, and federal policies which directly contribute to that failure.

Examples?

We are not opposed to separation of church and state - we are opposed to those leftist fanatics who have so perverted the definition of separation as to directly threaten our religion.

Examples?

We believe in a 'vast' military, because we believe that the US has an inherent responsibility to try to lift up those who suffer the vile actions of dictators and tyrants, regardless of country borders.

That may be a defensible belief, but it is more Wilsonian than conservative. None of our founders held that view.

4. I assume this is some kind of tortured and convoluted reference to the Patriot Act and how conservatives believe terrorists should not be afforded the legal rights of citizens .... yep. If you don't contribute, you shouldn't get to partake. If you didn't earn it, you don't get it.

It's about Big Brother watching you.

Frankly, based on your extremist view of things, I'm not sure you're deserving of the effort to provide you examples. This is your most popular technique - applied ad nauseum - when you don't have a cogent or intelligent response, you try to divert responsibility for carrying the discussion back to the other person.

I said what I said --- prove me wrong.

But, I will comment on one thing --- your comment that the conservative position is more 'Wilsonian' than conservative. The only Wilson Doctrine I know about is the one from British MP Harold Wilson about spying on his peers. I'm pretty sure that isn't what you meant, so I wonder if you are referring to US President Woodrow Wilson's application of the Monroe Doctrine (which, frankly, I can't see the applicability there, either).

Please no ad hominem SC. Address you criticisms to the member's post, not the member personally.

I addressed the post, thank you very much. It was a veiled attempt to stay relevant without having anything of substance to post. You can be assured that my opinions of the poster are significantly more animated.

Aw, that's too bad. I'm didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings.

And that too is an ad hominem statement no matter how mild.

 

[Foxfyre]

Examples?

Examples?

That may be a defensible belief, but it is more Wilsonian than conservative. None of our founders held that view.

It's about Big Brother watching you.

Frankly, based on your extremist view of things, I'm not sure you're deserving of the effort to provide you examples. This is your most popular technique - applied ad nauseum - when you don't have a cogent or intelligent response, you try to divert responsibility for carrying the discussion back to the other person.

I said what I said --- prove me wrong.

But, I will comment on one thing --- your comment that the conservative position is more 'Wilsonian' than conservative. The only Wilson Doctrine I know about is the one from British MP Harold Wilson about spying on his peers. I'm pretty sure that isn't what you meant, so I wonder if you are referring to US President Woodrow Wilson's application of the Monroe Doctrine (which, frankly, I can't see the applicability there, either).

Please no ad hominem SC. Address you criticisms to the member's post, not the member personally.

I addressed the post, thank you very much. It was a veiled attempt to stay relevant without having anything of substance to post. You can be assured that my opinions of the poster are significantly more animated.

Aw, that's too bad. I'm didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings.

And that too is an ad hominem statement no matter how mild.

Not a biggie though and again no harm, no foul. It sometimes happens despite our best efforts to avoid it. I was called on it myself I think in this thread or it could have been in another active thread that also had a no ad hominem rule. And I had to admit I indeed commit the offense and had to give myself a good talking to.

 

[Agit8r]

It seems like all the rules in this discussion are very "liberal"

 

[Foxfyre]

It seems like all the rules in this discussion are very "liberal"

Naw. Just liberally enforced via the dictionary definition for the word. LOL.

 

[oldernwiser]

Well, thank you for providing the limits. In light of those particular definitions, I don't see how anyone could ever make a simple choice of one over another. There are things an individual can do more efficiently and there are things that a government can do much better than an individual or when more than 1 individual needs to be involved. And, paradoxically, there are places where both need to overlap. In light of the article listed in the OP, I can't think of how liberalism could ever "run it's course" or probably more to the point how we could ever truly be free of the yoke of government. Things that you might feel free to do may impact or impinge MY freedoms, without a governmental umbrella I would either be forced into accepting my new limitations, finding a new place to be where I was less impacted, or to enter into direct conflict with you (remember our right to bear arms here).

This brings up an interesting point, because government itself plays many different roles as well. It has the role of controller, initiator, and arbiter. And of course, these also need to overlap in function.

And what ties this altogether is that we collectively create the functions of our government based on collective needs (which really is the root of Socialism, isn't it?). This means that individuals may or may not be properly served, and that's the drawback of any form of government aside from anarchy. However, this is mitigated by allowing localities to set most of their own rules - another overlap in function. This allows for us to move from the individual to the local collective level for dealing with the federal government and other collectives as an individual voice.

Here's where I have a problem with the definition set. If conservatives want to limit the scope of government, aren't they in fact attempting to circumvent democratic process? Example: The people in South Dakota want to build a pipeline that connects to a station in Illinois which must span the state of Iowa. The people in Iowa don't want this pipeline, but both SD and IL would benefit. Couldn't SD and IL override the wishes of the people in IA with limitations on the scope of the federal government? Now consider, once the pipeline is built it breaks in IA. Again, government's scope is limited, who pays for the massive clean up? Who makes the landowners whole after a major accident? And, what happens if the company that built the pipeline dissolved right after completion (which many companies do), are the people of IA SOL? And maybe more importantly, do we think it would be fair to leave them to their own devices? Tough luck? That's not a society at that point, it's simply groups of people and the law of the jungle. Is that the America that Conservatives foresee and would bring upon the rest of us?

There MUST be balance between both ideals. There are times when it makes sense to take risks and times when it's better to take a safer path. I believe that collectively, when presented with the proper data and stripped of social labels (liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, etc) we can make the decisions that make the most sense to the most people. And that was the founding principle for our country.

The political parties were taken out of the equation via thread rules. I intended this thread to be focused on liberalism, as it is most commonly understood and used in America, and whether people are okay with it or are rejecting it. I don't care how people define themselves or what political party they affiliate with.

Basically, if it is something not specifically authorized by the Constitution and the federal government is doing it, it is a liberal concept. The function itself is not what makes it liberal or conservative, but who is in control of it and how it is administered.

It is the difference between authority from a central government that dictates how the people will be governed versus self-governance in which the people decide that for themselves.

I believe Goldberg was of the opinion that most of the people are beginning to see the benefits of the ability to govern themselves and are rejecting a central government who presumes to know what is best for everybody in one-size-fits-all mandates.

As I understood the definitions given, these labels, conservative or liberal, are used to connote less or more government respectively. As I just finished replying, both schools of thought are wise at different times and for different reasons. But to identify solely as either conservative or liberal is, in itself, very dangerous. It represents laziness in our thoughts and ideas and paints us into corners. I relate more towards the liberal side (I'm getting older, and I want such benefits I've been promised my whole working life to be available when I retire), but I am absolutely against penalty taxation (alcohol and tobacco), and although registered in one party, I've switched sides many times to vote out an incumbent who supported such things - more serious issues notwithstanding.

As to the Constitutional requirements, which article granted a fire department or a police force? Which developed a health or human services department? Which decided that education was important or transportation? The Constitution isn't the entire government, it's the framework from which a government is built. WE are the government (at least constitutionally - something it seems that we've forgotten), so the notion of self-governance is simply redundant. Within the Constitution is built a scaffold upon which we can grant or diminish any authority. And here's the danger in labels again - if pure conservatism (by the definition given) is in vogue, then it stands to reason that education, transportation, health, police, and fire services are then governed by the principle that cheaper (and thus smaller) is the defining principle without regard to whether it's the best one that serves the most people. Likewise with pure liberalism, too much governance without regard to the good it provides is surely not a good approach either.

The OP and the article listed uses liberalism in a way which can be interpreted as a constant ideal. I am liberal, therefore government must always provide more services and therefore always get bigger and more intrusive. The conservative label would take us all back to log cabins. I can't speak to Goldberg's opinion, only my own. And as I said above, there must be a balance between both liberal and conservative ideals. It isn't liberalism which causes a government to increase it's scope, it's societal need at that point in time and there must always be a mechanism which allows for that regardless of the labels. I think that the problem lies in that once government does get bigger, nearly all of us take a conservative (dictionary definition here) stance and allow it to remain that way long after the need has passed, or even worse, as long government has control we feel we don't have to fix the underlying issues. But, that's neither liberal or conservative at that point, is it?

 

[oldernwiser]

Conservatives are not at all against public education. Conservatives invented public education. Conservatives just don't want federal control of education.

Really? I thought that was Benjamin Franklin. More of a federalist, wouldn't you say?

Most conservatives are for a defense strong enough to deter all enemies because preventing hostilities from starting is far preferable to war. But conservatives want fiscal accountability and prevention of a lot of unnecessary programs and expense rolled into and hidden in the defense budget.

Maybe that's YOU'RE opinion shining through, but all the Great Conservatives were just tripping all over themselves to kick a Liberal President for not nuking Putin and Iran at the same time. One of them was a former presidential candidate, and another will be declaring himself soon. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?

Also, I worked for many years for a defense contractor. Who do you really think hid all those unnecessary programs and expenses into defense contracts? It wasn't Ted Kennedy - he wanted those contracts killed completely BECAUSE they were so expensive.

Conservatives are all over the block on the separation of church and state issue, but most want the federal government to follow the letter and intent of the first amendment meaning they do not presume to have any jurisdiction over where or how people acknowledge or practice their faith.

... as long as they practice Christianity. Judaism is a close enough approximation. But you're out of luck if you happen to be a practicing Muslim, or if you're an indigenous native seeking spiritual guidance via certain botanicals. And for proof of that, watch Bill O'Reilly around Christmas.

I am not at all aware of any conservative objection any amendments to the Bill of Rights. Conservatives definitely object when the federal government oversteps its authority/limitations re those rights.

Actually, the 14th amendment which grants equal protection under the law has come under severe attack by conservatives, and has since it's ratification. But that has to do more with the 15th amendment which abolished slavery.

It is the conservative attitudes re the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that I believe is beginning to catch on with more people who have shaken off the blurred interpretations of liberalism and are beginning to embrace the Constitution as it was originally intended.

Really? What makes you think conservatives don't have a "blurred interpretation" of that same document? It seems to me that most conservatives tend to think that only the first 2 amendments in the BoR are required - I have the right to own a gun and also the right to brag about it.

Yes, I can smear conservatives too.

 

[oldernwiser]

the common usage of conservatism is also now the polar opposite of that in America and much more coincides with the libertarianism/classical liberalism of the Founders.

Then how come so many "conservatives" are against public education?

How come few favor the separation of church and state?

How come most are for a vast military?

How come many are against the 4th, 5th and 7th Amendments?

Let us be clear ---

1. Conservatives are not "against public education' - they are against FAILED public education, and federal policies which directly contribute to that failure.

2. We are not opposed to separation of church and state - we are opposed to those leftist fanatics who have so perverted the definition of separation as to directly threaten our religion.

3. We believe in a 'vast' military, because we believe that the US has an inherent responsibility to try to lift up those who suffer the vile actions of dictators and tyrants, regardless of country borders.

4. I assume this is some kind of tortured and convoluted reference to the Patriot Act and how conservatives believe terrorists should not be afforded the legal rights of citizens .... yep. If you don't contribute, you shouldn't get to partake. If you didn't earn it, you don't get it.

And yet, they are also against fixing the failures in education. (apparently, they get disinterested if throwing money at it doesn't work)

I would love to hear how leftist fanatics are interfering with your religious practice. Personally, I could care less if you burned goats. It pisses me off to no end when a conservative looks down their nose at me for MY beliefs, or prevents others from any practice because "that's not the way God intended it to be". Not many conservative champions of gay rights, are there?

You believe in the inherent responsibility to lift up those who suffer? Really? How about lobbying your legislature to increase food stamps and the minimum wage? Why are conservatives so adamantly against socializing medicine?

Sorry, but now you're just blowing smoke.

 

[candycorn]

It has been my experience that when someone says they are on the side of the founders, they are referring to the founders that they agree with. Surely, the 50 or so people we consider the founders were not all of one mind.

 

[oldernwiser]

It has been my experience that when someone says they are on the side of the founders, they are referring to the founders that they agree with. Surely, the 50 or so people we consider the founders were not all of one mind.

They certainly weren't. In fact that was the reason that the Continental Congress was sequestered in a closed room in the middle of summer. Something about heat and unbathed bodies in a confined space seems to bring a lot more agreement than leisure and comfort.

 

[candycorn]

It has been my experience that when someone says they are on the side of the founders, they are referring to the founders that they agree with. Surely, the 50 or so people we consider the founders were not all of one mind.

They certainly weren't. In fact that was the reason that the Continental Congress was sequestered in a closed room in the middle of summer. Something about heat and unbathed bodies in a confined space seems to bring a lot more agreement than leisure and comfort.

What I like to do is ask people who swear the founders back them at every turn what parts of the Constitution did they get wrong? Surely, if there were a document arrived at via compromise and horse trading such as our constitution, there are definitely parts that will not resonate with everyone. To date, nobody has told me of anything that the founders got wrong.....

Either they are ignorant of the document or we happend to have the only 50 perfect people to ever walk the earth around at one time.