Conservatives...

[SmarterthanYou]

:You'll have to be more specific for a debate and that could be a lengthy thread....

bravo, you and I agree on alot of things, but let me point out to you why your claim that conservatives are constitutionalists is absurd.

Society as a whole endorses the war on drugs and their place in society.....it is not a political issue but a social issue....

The constitution was written to empower the federal government with certain powers. One of those powers was to regulate interstate commerce, not regulate what people can grow and use for their own personal use or enjoyment. This would include marijuana, which is a naturally occurring plant that can grow just about anywhere.
Another of those powers/responsibilities was to protect the rights of the minority against the wants of the majority. So whether society as a whole endorses the war on drugs or not is irrelevant in a constitutional sense. It would be comparable to slavery. If society as a whole endorsed slavery, then would slavery be constitutional?

Gun rights are spelled out in the Constitution and as with EVERY right, it comes with limitations....you don't think you should have a ICBM in you arsenal do you ?

To consider yourself a constitutionalist, you must align yourself with the same mindset as the founders, including their beliefs and intent when they wrote and ratified the constitution. 'Shall not be infringed' is pretty absolute, as is the papers and documents outlining all the debates and arguments that allowed all the people of each of the thirteen states to vote on and ratify said constitution. The belief and intent was to ensure that each citizen would and could be as equally armed as any military member. So, if a member of the military can carry a machine gun, so could a citizen. If a military member could carry an ICBM, so could a citizen. The whole argument of 'no right is absolute' was not thought of until 1919 with the infamous 'fire in a crowded theater' argument by justice Holmes. By even remotely considering the possibility that the framers of this nation believed that a supreme court had the power to define what our rights were limited to, especially in the light of 'we the people' creating that supreme court, well the idea is just preposterous.

rights of the accused or suspected ???? Thats needs clarification....each has different rights and different safeguards to consider....they are again up to conclusion based on Constitutional debate and application....

modern day conservatives and liberals, depending on the aspect of a persons criminal charges, are wholeheartedly willing to ignore a persons right to privacy or security in their homes, papers, and effects if there's the slightest inclination of criminal activity involved. If it's marijuana, conservatives will believe that the person in question has no more right to privacy....allowing warrantless searches or even illegal searches of said persons home/car/person. Liberals are very much the same way if the activity concerns guns. Both left and right are also willing to ignore 5th Amendment protections by not only ignoring, but very possibly approving of violent reprisals of said person in jails or prisons with the axiom of 'they wouldn't be there if they didn't deserve it'.

It's been a very shameful dereliction of duty of the american citizen to allow travesties like the above to happen, but it's a direct correlation to the saying of winston churchill that 'evil flourishes when good men do nothing', and it's never been more readily apparent than it has in the last 50 years.

 

[Rune]

It's relatively easy for someone of limited intellectual capacity to make a statement like this. "Product of the system?" What does that mean, really? How am I to argue with that? And if libs or cons are not the problem, what IS the problem? How can one's ideology be considered "a distraction?" You see, what you posted doesn't even make rational sense, it doesn't withstand the scrutiny of evaluation. Perhaps you could have elaborated more, but you didn't. That tells me, you really don't know what you just said, it merely sounded good at the time.

Read post #18, check the links, watch the video, maybe it will make sense to you, maybe it will not.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The constitution was written to empower the federal government with certain powers.

Right off the bat, you begin your supposition with a totally incorrect premise. The Constitution certainly WAS NOT written to "empower federal government" ...it just wasn't! Period! Some would argue, it was intended to do the exact opposite, to empower THE PEOPLE over the government. To any extent it gave any power at all to a central federal government, it was strictly limited to the bare necessities and essentials, and the power was carefully enumerated. Through the years, different factions have come into power, and altered the interpretations, changed the dynamics, and rewritten the laws concerning the limited government our founding fathers established. You mention the "commerce clause" and this is a prime example of how misinterpretation of the founding intent, has permeated its way into our thinking. Now, the commerce clause is routinely used as the justification for all kinds of unconstitutional power grabbing by the federal government.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Read post #18, check the links, watch the video, maybe it will make sense to you, maybe it will not.

Your video is nothing more than conspiracy theory propaganda, most likely put out by socialists or anarchists, and has nothing to do with the conversation we are having. What's the matter, can you not make your point without the aid of some hyped up fabricated bullshit from kooks?

 

[Bfgrn]

Let's get you straightened out on some things here. First of all, Conservatives don't believe in "aristocracy" they believe in the opposite, "democracy." But you have conveniently redefined "aristocracy" to mean what you need for it to mean, in order to make your invalid point. This is your first mistake. Wikipedia defines "aristocracy" as a form of government in which the "most qualified" rule. Now, what is wrong with that in principle? Shouldn't the most qualified be in charge? Well, the problem is, when all the power is controlled by only the elite few who are "qualified" then democracy fails, the will and voice of the people is silenced. No Conservative I have ever known, is in favor of silencing the will and voice of the people.

The next thing you are in error on, is the delineation between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe in free market capitalism, and they believe this is the best way for the most people to experience prosperity in an open democratic society. Liberals believe in Statism, and they believe the power of government should be used to ensure social justice through social engineering and wealth redistribution. NEO-Conservatives (NEOCONS) believe in global capitalism, and they believe the solution to many of the world's problems of wealth inequity can be solved with implementation of global capitalist measures, however that might be accomplished. NEO-Liberals believe in global statism, modeled after European Marxist Socialism, and they believe this will lead to equity in the world.

The problem with Liberalism and Neo-liberalism, is the principle of statism always fails and collapses. You see, government doesn't produce anything, they don't generate wealth of any kind. The money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the producers in society. Now, this works for some small isolated countries to a certain degree, but whenever the principles are applied to large populations, the producers simply become demotivated and despair sets in, then the system totally collapses because there is no longer a source of wealth for the statist government to operate on.

Over 70 years of brainwashing by Communists and Socialist Marxists, has resulted in a large number of our population to be under the delusion that things are free, that our government can take care of our needs with some mythical unlimited pile of money it has at its disposal. The bottom line is, nothing is ever free. Anything our government provides for us, someone has to pay for. Any benefit or service our government offers, has to be funded on the backs of the producers. When unemployment begins to creep up near 10% or more, where are these producers? Well, they are at home drawing 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, further exasperating the problem. This is why statist systems ultimately collapse, and once they begin the slide down, there is no stopping it until we reach the bottom.

Okay... now, modern American liberals, they have been conditioned to believe that what they advocate and promote, is "helping" the little guy... the common man, and what they are fighting and opposing, is the conglomerate, the wealthy aristocrat, the corporate machine. Nothing could be further from the truth, because oppressing capitalism is eventually what will cause economic catastrophe, and all except the very rich, will be fighting over bread crumbs. Liberals are not "helping" the little guy, they are systematically ensuring everyone except the aristocratic elites, will suffer in the end. Conservatives believe in the power of individuals, and through the free market of ideas, and with capitalist initiatives, ANY person has the capacity for prosperity and wealth. It's a simple matter of.... is it "help" to dole out "charity" to someone, or is it "help" to empower them?

Thank you for constructing an aristocracy by blaming liberals for wanting democracy. Something conservatives despise.

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice.

 

[DamnYankee]

Here's the great thing DY, It will be YOU and not me who will prove my assertion. Because anyone can read what you and other 'conservatives' post and ask that simple question:

"Will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?"

And when the answer is YES it will be YOU and not me providing proof...

Oh really?

Here's how conservatives define themselves:

We, as young conservatives, believe:
• That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
• That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
• That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
• That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;
• That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;
• That the genius of the Constitution—the division of powers—is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;
• That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;
• That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;
• That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies;
• That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;
• That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistance with, this menace; and
• That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?

Read More :: http://www.conservative.org/about-acu/principles/#ixzz1OpW2dp6H

Now tell me how this will lead to an aristocracy.

 

[NOVA]

Your video is nothing more than conspiracy theory propaganda, most likely put out by socialists or anarchists, and has nothing to do with the conversation we are having. What's the matter, can you not make your point without the aid of some hyped up fabricated bullshit from kooks?

You handle the fuckin' imbeciles Dix...I'll rap with STY when I get the chance.....:lol:

 

[Rune]

Your video is nothing more than conspiracy theory propaganda, most likely put out by socialists or anarchists, and has nothing to do with the conversation we are having. What's the matter, can you not make your point without the aid of some hyped up fabricated bullshit from kooks?

Was the wikipedia link put up by socailists Too? Did you happen to look at it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_relationships_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

The truth is that all the presidents of this country are related, all are direct decendants of the European royal family, and we do live in an aristocracy, always has been, always will be. All the bullshit we argue about is just a big distraction to keep you from realising how badly you are getting fucked.

 

[Rune]

You handle the fuckin' imbeciles Dix...I'll rap with STY when I get the chance.....:lol:

You are the moron that said Saudi Arabia is not an aristocracy. Maybe STY can explain to you that when a royal family governs a country, it is an aristocracy.

 

[cawacko]

Thank you for constructing an aristocracy by blaming liberals for wanting democracy. Something conservatives despise.

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice.

Is there a translation of this into English?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Sometimes the truth is funnier than satire...


Study: Conservatives have larger "fear center"
University College London researchers say brains of the right-leaning have big amygdala, small anterior cingulate

Specifically, the research shows that people with conservative tendencies have a larger amygdala and a smaller anterior cingulate than other people. The amygdala -- typically thought of as the "primitive brain" -- is responsible for reflexive impulses, like fear. The anterior cingulate is thought to be responsible for courage and optimism. This one-two punch could be responsible for many of the anecdotal claims that conservatives "think differently" from others.

More

How come we're willing to get shot at in uniform, then?

 

[Bfgrn]

Is there a translation of this into English?

Sure...Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy. It always has been and always will be.

 

[cawacko]

How come we're willing to get shot at in uniform, then?

Liberals prefer to get shot at in the streets.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i skimmed the thread and didn't see anyone else pointing out the logical fallacy in bfgrn's thread....so....

comparing a corporations profits to household income only shows what a moron bfgrn is. the two are not the same, at all, nor even close.

nor are all corporation profits up 200%. this thread serves to show, again, how ignorant bfgrn is about economics and real world issues. stop reading far left hack sites and get your information from elsewhere. i read, listen and watch from many sources, left, right, middle, independent....you should follow that and you will be surprised.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Was the wikipedia link put up by socailists Too? Did you happen to look at it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_relationships_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

The truth is that all the presidents of this country are related, all are direct decendants of the European royal family, and we do live in an aristocracy, always has been, always will be. All the bullshit we argue about is just a big distraction to keep you from realising how badly you are getting fucked.

*sigh* .....And I am related to Barack Obama, Lucille Ball, and Emily Dickinson! Some philosophical people would argue we are ALL related to each other! This is nothing more than a curiosity, a neat little trick... and you are just gullible enough to be fooled by it. Never is the case, where someone reads or hears 'propaganda' and thinks... I recognize this as propaganda, but I am going to believe it anyway. Most people who are propagandized, don't realize that is what has happened. They accept the 'propaganda' as it is presented, as the 'truth' and they don't question it further. The better the propaganda, the less likely you are to recognize it as such, and the more likely you are to accept it as the truth. This 'all the presidents are related' thing, is very clever propaganda. It masquerades as the truth, because it is a supposition built around something believable and most likely, factual. Another good example would be the meme we often hear from liberals... "The wealthy are becoming richer, while the poor are becoming poorer." ....Well duh! Rich people, generally speaking, are rich because they have the drive and motivation to make money, and they do so... they are naturally going to continue to "get richer" because it is the nature of rich people in general, while poor people generally lack the motivation to attain wealth, and always will... thus, they remain poor or get poorer. It doesn't mean the system is unfair, although, that is the subsequent propaganda point, it's just the way things are in life, some people are motivated to be successful and some aren't. You could equally redistribute all the wealth in the world, where everyone has exactly the same amount of wealth across the board, and there would STILL be people more motivated to earn wealth and people less motivated, and within 20 years, the disparity between rich and poor would return to virtually the same levels.

 

[Bfgrn]

i skimmed the thread and didn't see anyone else pointing out the logical fallacy in bfgrn's thread....so....

comparing a corporations profits to household income only shows what a moron bfgrn is. the two are not the same, at all, nor even close.

nor are all corporation profits up 200%. this thread serves to show, again, how ignorant bfgrn is about economics and real world issues. stop reading far left hack sites and get your information from elsewhere. i read, listen and watch from many sources, left, right, middle, independent....you should follow that and you will be surprised.

Yurt...you are replying to the WRONG THREAD. I just skimmed over your cranium...EMPTY. What is that valve stem sticking out of your head?

Better swing by the Gas station...

 

[Rune]

*sigh* .....And I am related to Barack Obama, Lucille Ball, and Emily Dickinson! Some philosophical people would argue we are ALL related to each other! This is nothing more than a curiosity, a neat little trick... and you are just gullible enough to be fooled by it. Never is the case, where someone reads or hears 'propaganda' and thinks... I recognize this as propaganda, but I am going to believe it anyway. Most people who are propagandized, don't realize that is what has happened. They accept the 'propaganda' as it is presented, as the 'truth' and they don't question it further. The better the propaganda, the less likely you are to recognize it as such, and the more likely you are to accept it as the truth. This 'all the presidents are related' thing, is very clever propaganda. It masquerades as the truth, because it is a supposition built around something believable and most likely, factual. Another good example would be the meme we often hear from liberals... "The wealthy are becoming richer, while the poor are becoming poorer." ....Well duh! Rich people, generally speaking, are rich because they have the drive and motivation to make money, and they do so... they are naturally going to continue to "get richer" because it is the nature of rich people in general, while poor people generally lack the motivation to attain wealth, and always will... thus, they remain poor or get poorer. It doesn't mean the system is unfair, although, that is the subsequent propaganda point, it's just the way things are in life, some people are motivated to be successful and some aren't. You could equally redistribute all the wealth in the world, where everyone has exactly the same amount of wealth across the board, and there would STILL be people more motivated to earn wealth and people less motivated, and within 20 years, the disparity between rich and poor would return to virtually the same levels.

Wikipedia is propaganda now Dix?

If we go back 27 generations, we are all related.
Mathematicaly, only 1/3 of the presidents should be related.
Face it Dix, you have been duped, and everything you beleive about our political system is wrong.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yurt...you are replying to the WRONG THREAD. I just skimmed over your cranium...EMPTY. What is that valve stem sticking out of your head?

Better swing by the Gas station...

i'm replying to the wrong thread.....YET....i'm replying DIRECTLY to statements in your OPENING POST OF THIS THREAD

 

[apple0154]

Dixie on Conservatives. Msg #15
“Conservatives believe in the power of individuals, and through the free market of ideas, and with capitalist initiatives, ANY person has the capacity for prosperity and wealth.”

Damn Yankee on Conservatives. Msg #26
“Here's how conservatives define themselves:
That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;”

I’d like to thank both Dixie and Damn Yankee for such concise and valuable information.

Let’s take a closer look at those two comments.

1. If any person has the capacity for prosperity and wealth that implies those whom do not obtain prosperity and wealth are at fault.

2. when (government) takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both. Considering the government’s only way to help people is to obtain “help” from certain individuals in order to give to other individuals the implication is that helping people is destructive.

Those sentiments (reasons) lie at the heart of why Liberals and Conservatives can not agree on policy changes regarding pensions, medical care, etc. How can changes to programs designed to help the needy be discussed when one group believes that not only is helping destructive but it is the fault of the needy for requiring help?

That is why Obama went ahead with ObamaCare without much Conservative input as what is the point of negotiating with someone who is against the very idea being negotiated? What is the point of discussing entitlement programs with people who are against any form of entitlement programs? Why would one expect those folks to offer a viable solution when they are against any viable solution?

 

[NOVA]

You are the moron that said Saudi Arabia is not an aristocracy. Maybe STY can explain to you that when a royal family governs a country, it is an aristocracy.

Thats an outright lie.....you've got some balls to even make a claim that anyone that cares to, can look back an see you're a fuckin' liar.....