Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please keep posting. The 'knowledge' you impart is critical in helping those on the fence decide which way to vote. I'm sure many right leaning conservatives consider you to be their mentor and a role model for all conservatives. Keep on recruiting, it helps more than you know.
Well thanks, but I have no illusions about being anybody's role model or mentor or having any more influence than anybody else. Being a bit of a wordsmith, however, I do like to assign names or labels to concepts and principles held by many but which have become poorly defined in modern vernacular. Terms like 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'social contract' or 'original intent'.
I think all true modern American conservatives pretty much share the same ideals, principles, and concepts at least at the center core. But until you actually formulate a definition for what the center core is, it is difficult to unify in a cause or principle or acheive any success in effective positive change.
For me the center core is the mantra I keep hammering into the discussion:
The modern American conservative (MAC for short) essentially wants the federal government to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not any individual or targeted group), and secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.
Liberals don't get that either as a concept or a principle. Modern American conservatives do.
Ujm...I need to learn how to use the quote function properly. My comment was entirely sarcastic and directed at bripat. Sorry for creating the confusion.
I do think you are a good role model. However, I disagree with you and other originalists. I believe our Constitution is a living document.
Ujm...I need to learn how to use the quote function properly. My comment was entirely sarcastic and directed at bripat. Sorry for creating the confusion.
I do think you are a good role model. However, I disagree with you and other originalists. I believe our Constitution is a living document.
Which makes you more of a liberal than a conservative. I should have realized you were addressing Bripat, however.
The problem with the 'living document' concept is that it gives too much leeway for a President or Congress or the Courts to interpret it to their own benefit and purpose rather than adhere to the core principles it was intended to protect. If the Constitution is not interpreted as the Founders interpreted it and intended it, it becomes too fluid to have much ability to protect anything of value to any of us.
Yet the founders gave us checks to such abuse of power, every two years we can change our leadership by the vote and Americans have never been shy about doing so.
Well thanks, but I have no illusions about being anybody's role model or mentor or having any more influence than anybody else. Being a bit of a wordsmith, however, I do like to assign names or labels to concepts and principles held by many but which have become poorly defined in modern vernacular. Terms like 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'social contract' or 'original intent'.
I think all true modern American conservatives pretty much share the same ideals, principles, and concepts at least at the center core. But until you actually formulate a definition for what the center core is, it is difficult to unify in a cause or principle or acheive any success in effective positive change.
For me the center core is the mantra I keep hammering into the discussion:
The modern American conservative (MAC for short) essentially wants the federal government to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not any individual or targeted group), and secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.
Liberals don't get that either as a concept or a principle. Modern American conservatives do.
Ujm...I need to learn how to use the quote function properly. My comment was entirely sarcastic and directed at bripat. Sorry for creating the confusion.
I do think you are a good role model. However, I disagree with you and other originalists. I believe our Constitution is a living document.
Documents are not alive. If we accept a living constitution interpretation you toss out the rule of law and institute the tyranny of the majority. Either the constitution means what it says or we have nothing as a framework for our government.
Well thanks, but I have no illusions about being anybody's role model or mentor or having any more influence than anybody else. Being a bit of a wordsmith, however, I do like to assign names or labels to concepts and principles held by many but which have become poorly defined in modern vernacular. Terms like 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'social contract' or 'original intent'.
Please keep posting. The 'knowledge' you impart is critical in helping those on the fence decide which way to vote. I'm sure many right leaning conservatives consider you to be their mentor and a role model for all conservatives. Keep on recruiting, it helps more than you know.
Ujm...I need to learn how to use the quote function properly. My comment was entirely sarcastic and directed at bripat. Sorry for creating the confusion.
I do think you are a good role model. However, I disagree with you and other originalists. I believe our Constitution is a living document.
Documents are not alive. If we accept a living constitution interpretation you toss out the rule of law and institute the tyranny of the majority. Either the constitution means what it says or we have nothing as a framework for our government.
That's your opinion and you'r not alone, in fact most people use originalism when it suits them. Finding a quote from a framer to support a modern position can be a powerful way to advance their point of view
The counterpoint to this argument is how relevant can The Constitution be if only viewed through 18th Century eyes? We have over 200 years of history and legal rulings not privy to our forefathers and have as much trouble thinking like them as they would have in thinking like us.
Well thanks, but I have no illusions about being anybody's role model or mentor or having any more influence than anybody else. Being a bit of a wordsmith, however, I do like to assign names or labels to concepts and principles held by many but which have become poorly defined in modern vernacular. Terms like 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'social contract' or 'original intent'.
When you find yourself on the same side as WryCatcher, then you know you're going down the wrong road.
Documents are not alive. If we accept a living constitution interpretation you toss out the rule of law and institute the tyranny of the majority. Either the constitution means what it says or we have nothing as a framework for our government.
That's your opinion and you'r not alone, in fact most people use originalism when it suits them. Finding a quote from a framer to support a modern position can be a powerful way to advance their point of view
The counterpoint to this argument is how relevant can The Constitution be if only viewed through 18th Century eyes? We have over 200 years of history and legal rulings not privy to our forefathers and have as much trouble thinking like them as they would have in thinking like us.
If most people use originalism then the odds are that you are wrong.
The argument that the people who wrote the constitution did not know about computers, and that, as a result, the 4th Amendment does not apply to computers, is an outgrowth of the living constitution scool of thought, not the originailists. Originilism is not about arguing that, because the constitution does not say something, we need to make something up to make it work. Originilism is about saying that the intent of the document is to prevent search of peoples documents, even if they are electronic.
Do you honestly think that, if we resurrected the founders, and taught them everything they need to know to flourish in modern society, they would see a massive need to rewrite the constitution to adapt to technology? I have a specific challenge for you, tell me what, exactly, needs to change in the constitution in order to adapt it to 2012, and then explain why we should trust the courts to make those changes rather than actually amending the constitution.
Just because you are blinded by the lies told by people who want to abolish the rule of law, that does not mean everyone, or even most people, are equally blinded.
I suspect if they were resurrected they would serioulsly amend the 2nd Amendment, given the daily carnage across our nation.
Please keep posting. The 'knowledge' you impart is critical in helping those on the fence decide which way to vote. I'm sure many right leaning conservatives consider you to be their mentor and a role model for all conservatives. Keep on recruiting, it helps more than you know.
So let me get this straight: the way to recruit conservatives is to agree with the idiocies you post? Is that what you're saying?
I'm pretty sure the gov't we have today is a far cry from what we started from, and for the worse too. These days the state and local gov'ts are in thrall to the feds, as are most citizens. Dems say it's Wall Street that's in charge, but I think it's Washington who makes the rules and decides who iwns and who doesn't. Or at least an unholy union of the two.
I'm pretty sure the gov't we have today is a far cry from what we started from, and for the worse too. These days the state and local gov'ts are in thrall to the feds, as are most citizens. Dems say it's Wall Street that's in charge, but I think it's Washington who makes the rules and decides who iwns and who doesn't. Or at least an unholy union of the two.
It's Congress that decides who win and who loses and they are wholly owned by those who win. It's call Plutocracy.
So let me get this straight: the way to recruit conservatives is to agree with the idiocies you post? Is that what you're saying?
LOL, I know it's kinda sad, but still funny.
I'm pretty sure the gov't we have today is a far cry from what we started from, and for the worse too. These days the state and local gov'ts are in thrall to the feds, as are most citizens. Dems say it's Wall Street that's in charge, but I think it's Washington who makes the rules and decides who iwns and who doesn't. Or at least an unholy union of the two.
It's Congress that decides who win and who loses and they are wholly owned by those who win. It's call Plutocracy.
I thought you lefties believed it's all the fault of the Wall Streeters who own the pols.
It's Congress that decides who win and who loses and they are wholly owned by those who win. It's call Plutocracy.
I'm not a lefty.
I'm not a lefty.
You kill me!
You make Pol Pot look like a moderate.
