This is American Conservatism

Posted by: Senator Hatrack

This is American Conservatism - 08/10/19 08:40 PM

To conserve something is to want to preserve and protect it. American Conservatives want to return our government to doing only what is listed in Article I Section 8 of our Constitution. Anything that is not expressly authorized by it is to be either eliminated or done by the various state or local governments.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/10/19 08:49 PM

A literalist argument that implies that the Constitution is some kind of ship in a glass bottle?

Is that really what the founders intended? Their written works do not entirely agree with that assumption.

What's next, Tentherism? Sovereign Citizen-hood?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/10/19 10:08 PM

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." James Madison

A limited government is what our Founding Fathers intended. That is why Article I Section 8 is list of what our government is allowed to do. Our Founding Fathers put our Constitution in writing to ensure that our government would always be a limited one.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/10/19 10:48 PM

Jefferson on The Lousiana Purchase

Quote:
"The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less of incorporating foreign nations into our Union. The executive in seizing a fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of this country, have done an act beyond the Constitution. The Legislature in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties, and risking themselves like faithful servants, must ... throw themselves on their country for doing for them unauthorized what we know they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to do it."


So even strict constructionist Jefferson was guilty of a bit of Hamiltonianism.

We can have running battles between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians all day long.
I guess you'd better hammer out another petition to match the one you have demanding FDR be removed from the dime.

Gotta get that bastard Hamilton removed from the ten spot too!
What a commie he was.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/10/19 10:52 PM

Hell, for that matter, maybe you should advocate a return to the Articles of Confederation!
Now THERE'S some REAL originalism!!
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/10/19 11:17 PM

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held because the Articles of Confederation didn't work. Our Constitution is a compilation of many documents to limit government starting with the Magna Carta.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 12:09 AM

But authorized or not most Americans WANT social security. I doubt the supreme court is ever going to declare it unconstitutional, because the backlash would be huge. I think this is why we have Amendments to the Constitution. The Congress and the Courts have to respect public desires or else they actually amend the Constitution.

So the "founding father's original meaning" position is pretty silly. Amending the Constitution is right there in the Constitution itself. Many of those amendments are complete reversals of the founders positions.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 12:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held because the Articles of Confederation didn't work. Our Constitution is a compilation of many documents to limit government starting with the Magna Carta.


It is amusing to see you up there, believing you're teaching a history class to a bunch of ignoramuses.
I know full well why the CC1787 was held.

But I am suggesting (sarcastically) that if originalism is your forte, the AOC is even more "original" than the Constitution.
Why settle for second best? wink
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 12:52 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all

So the "founding father's original meaning" position is pretty silly. Amending the Constitution is right there in the Constitution itself. Many of those amendments are complete reversals of the founders positions.


I wish I had the almost perfect rote memorization of the founders papers that some of you appear to have, but I distinctly remember another paper in which at least one of the founders made special mention of the fact that the day would come when the Constitution might no longer serve the needs of a society way into the future, and that it might need to be brought into sync.

Sorry if that sounds vague.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 05:01 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
But authorized or not most Americans WANT social security. I doubt the supreme court is ever going to declare it unconstitutional, because the backlash would be huge. I think this is why we have Amendments to the Constitution. The Congress and the Courts have to respect public desires or else they actually amend the Constitution.

So the "founding father's original meaning" position is pretty silly. Amending the Constitution is right there in the Constitution itself. Many of those amendments are complete reversals of the founders positions.


The Supreme Court probably will not rule Social Security un-Constitutional. Even though they should. The Supreme Court made that decision after FDR's court packing scheme which might have helped some of SC Justices look at Social Security a little more favorably. Then in 1960 with the decision of Flemming v. Nestor the SC ruled that no one is entitled to the money they have paid into it. Should enough Americans learn that they might get a little upset. How much will people want Social Security when it goes bankrupt? How many will want it when they learn that their children and grandchildren will have to pay about 30% of their income, before they pay their income tax, so that those who are on Social Security will continue to get their (falsely) promised benefits? Had the SC ruled Social Security un-Constitutional this mess would not have been created.

In Helvering v. Davis, which ruled that Social Security was Constitutional, Justice Cardozo based his decision in the case on Alexander Hamilton's interpretation of the general Welfare clause. He should not have done that. He shouldn't have done that because Hamilton had nothing to with writing the general Welfare clause. James Madison wrote it. This is what Madison had to say about the general Welfare clause.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/363/603.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 12:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
To conserve something is to want to preserve and protect it.
  • Slavery
  • White Superiority
  • Patriarchy
  • White dominance in society
  • White control of government to benefit white citizenry
shocked
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 12:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
American Conservatives want to return our government to...

...the 1950s when whites dominated American culture and government and where whites are the majority in society.

smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 12:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Anything that is not expressly authorized by it is to be either eliminated or done by the various state or local governments.
  • Women's right to vote
  • Minorites right to vote
  • Gay Marriage
  • Due process for non-whites
  • Women's right to control their bodies
  • The right to own land if non-white male
Thanks for the reminder of why Conservatism is a racist and bigoted ideology, Senator Hatrack. smile
Posted by: rporter314

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 04:20 PM

Yes I see your belief is we should return to 1790, since almost everything following would have been unConstitutional. Yikes!!! What you believe is the Founders were stupid ignorant men of no vision who would write a document meant to calcify government into another useless instrument of tyranny.

I suggest they were not ignorant nor stupid but men of great vision, who were more than aware of a mercurial society and of technological advances. These men would have considered this in writing a profound document, which laid the foundations for future generations , and would not have constrained men to antiquated laws bereft of elastic interpretations in volatile times.

Originally Posted By: Pres Thomas Jefferson
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 04:20 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
To conserve something is to want to preserve and protect it.
  • Slavery
  • White Superiority
  • Patriarchy
  • White dominance in society
  • White control of government to benefit white citizenry
shocked

None, absolutely none, of the things on that list are what Conservatives want to preserve and protect.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 04:26 PM

The sole intent of all documents leading to the US Constitution was not to limit government by size but to prevent government from enslaving its citizenry.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 04:35 PM

Slavery is certainly mentioned in the Constitution. As an originalist, do you adhere to those sacred words or have you rationalized to yourself slavery is not good and therefore etc etc. If so, then you are not above interpretation of the sacred text. So how can you maintain originalism with your apostasy?

I think this is the fundamental problem for all "originalists", i.e. they selectively exclude some clauses for interpretation while others they argue are immutable. As a person of principle, how do you reconcile this?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 04:49 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Yes I see your belief is we should return to 1790, since almost everything following would have been unConstitutional. Yikes!!! What you believe is the Founders were stupid ignorant men of no vision who would write a document meant to calcify government into another useless instrument of tyranny.

I suggest they were not ignorant nor stupid but men of great vision, who were more than aware of a mercurial society and of technological advances. These men would have considered this in writing a profound document, which laid the foundations for future generations , and would not have constrained men to antiquated laws bereft of elastic interpretations in volatile times.

Originally Posted By: Pres Thomas Jefferson
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors

That is why our Constitution has Article V. To amend our Constitution to fit our society as it has changed over time. But what has not changed is human nature. By having a written constitution it recognizes and puts limits on the lust for power that is part of human nature. That our Founding Fathers recognized how the lust for power is unchanging is an example of their wisdom.
"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."
"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another."
James Madison
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 05:02 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Slavery is certainly mentioned in the Constitution. As an originalist, do you adhere to those sacred words or have you rationalized to yourself slavery is not good and therefore etc etc. If so, then you are not above interpretation of the sacred text. So how can you maintain originalism with your apostasy?

I think this is the fundamental problem for all "originalists", i.e. they selectively exclude some clauses for interpretation while others they argue are immutable. As a person of principle, how do you reconcile this?

Our Founding Fathers acquiesced to the existence of slavery with great reluctance. Some them were active abolitionists. The protection of slavery in our Constitution was a shameful compromise that had to be made for it to be ratified. Because they were wise enough to include Article V in it they provided a way to expunge that compromise when the American people realized the evils of slavery. To condemn our Constitution and Founding Fathers for protecting slavery is to judge it and them by today's standards. That is like expecting man to be able to have traveled to the moon once rockets were invented. The quote you posted from Pres. Jefferson and Article V of our Constitution explains why originalists abhor slavery just as much as our Founding Fathers did, even the ones who owned slaves.
Posted by: Greger

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 05:34 PM

That there are arguments over the interpretation of the words in the constitution is proof enough that there is plenty of room for flexibility. When actual changes are demanded by a wide majority of voters then it is easily amended. The FFs never meant for it to be like the Ten Comandmants but for it to be a living and breathing document.

I'm what you would call a socialist. There's not a single item in my agenda that would conflict with the Constitution. It's a good document and it's proven to work. Our interpretations probably diverge at... "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

You cannot tell me that the FFs ever envisioned worldwide military domination to be the main goal of our government, even during peacetime, to the detriment of the health, education, and employment of the general population.

**EDIT***...or maybe you can but that we argue at all simply illustrates my argument that the words are somewhat ambiguous sometimes and subject to interpretation.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 05:37 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Anything that is not expressly authorized by it is to be either eliminated or done by the various state or local governments.
  • Women's right to vote
  • Minorites right to vote
  • Gay Marriage
  • Due process for non-whites
  • Women's right to control their bodies
  • The right to own land if non-white male
Thanks for the reminder of why Conservatism is a racist and bigoted ideology, Senator Hatrack. smile

This comment is another example of judging our Constitution by today's standards. When it was written the right to vote, even when it was limited to white males, was an extremely radical idea! That extending the right to vote to women and minorities was unfortunately something that took time to do. The state of Wyoming gave women the right to vote before our federal government did. That is why I said there are somethings the states should do. The Fifth Amendment is color blind. Sadly the enforcement of it was not. Again that is something that took time to accomplish. Ever since the days when we were colonies of England people of color could and did own land. Gay marriage is a long overdue idea but it is not banned by our Constitution. It isn't because marriage, gay or straight, is not mentioned in our Constitution. The idea of women controlling their bodies is also a recent one, which it is why it is not mention in our Constitution either.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 05:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Our Founding Fathers acquiesced to the existence of slavery with great reluctance.


ROTFMOL

I'm sure the Founding Father just hated owning salves - but were merely keeping up with the Jones'. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 05:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Anything that is not expressly authorized by it is to be either eliminated or done by the various state or local governments.
  • Women's right to vote
  • Minorites right to vote
  • Gay Marriage
  • Due process for non-whites
  • Women's right to control their bodies
  • The right to own land if non-white male
Thanks for the reminder of why Conservatism is a racist and bigoted ideology, Senator Hatrack. smile

This comment is another example of judging our Constitution by today's standards. When it was written the right to vote, even when it was limited to white males, was an extremely radical idea!

What would have been truly radical is that everybody had freedom and were equal in the spirit of The Age of Enlightenment - but that didn't happen - because those pesky "keep the status quo" aka "conserve and preserve" ideals got into the way. coffee
Posted by: Greger

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 06:02 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
The sole intent of all documents leading to the US Constitution was not to limit government by size but to prevent government from enslaving its citizenry.


And yet here we find ourselves enslaved....Each university graduate in debt up to their asses to the US government. Wages have been held artificially low for years to benefit the plantation owners...

16 tons and what do I get...
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 06:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
That there are arguments over the interpretation of the words in the constitution is proof enough that there is plenty of room for flexibility. When actual changes are demanded by a wide majority of voters then it is easily amended. The FFs never meant for it to be like the Ten Comandmants but for it to be a living and breathing document.

If our Constitution were meant to be a living breathing document our Founding Fathers would not have taken the time and effort to write it.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson
That is not a description of a living breathing constitution.
Originally Posted By: Greger
I'm what you would call a socialist. There's not a single item in my agenda that would conflict with the Constitution. It's a good document and it's proven to work. Our interpretations probably diverge at... "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

There they do diverge. The general Welfare clause to be interpreted as it's author, James Madison, intended it to be and this is what Madison had to say about it.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
Quote:
You cannot tell me that the FFs ever envisioned worldwide military domination to be the main goal of our government, even during peacetime, to the detriment of the health, education, and employment of the general population.

**EDIT***...or maybe you can but that we argue at all simply illustrates my argument that the words are somewhat ambiguous sometimes and subject to interpretation.

That the United States is the dominant military force in the world is not something our Founding Fathers wanted. That it has happened is due to circumstances beyond the control of our government. However, because our military is as large as it is it has quite often been used to benefit the rest of the world. Our military was helping people around the world long before it became the largest one in the world.
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/li...-disasters.html
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 06:36 PM

pdx rick did you run before you could walk? No, you did not. Just as you did not run before you could walk our government could not run, implement the radical ideas of freedom as widely as they are now, before it could walk. So for you to criticize our government's supposed failure to implement the radical ideas of freedom is at best 20/20 hindsight. At worst it is the ridiculous idea that someone could run before they could walk.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 06:42 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Our Founding Fathers acquiesced to the existence of slavery with great reluctance.


ROTFMOL

I'm sure the Founding Father just hated owning salves - but were merely keeping up with the Jones'. smile

Yes, they did.
"As much as I value an union of all the states, I would not admit the southern states into the union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness and not strength to the union."
"The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind."
George Mason, the "Father of our Bill of Rights."
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 06:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Originally Posted By: rporter314
The sole intent of all documents leading to the US Constitution was not to limit government by size but to prevent government from enslaving its citizenry.


And yet here we find ourselves enslaved....Each university graduate in debt up to their asses to the US government. Wages have been held artificially low for years to benefit the plantation owners...

16 tons and what do I get...

Those who have student loan debts entered into the contract for them of their own free will. It is far better to have wages determined by the free market where people can change and improve their conditions at will than to have wages determined by a socialist government.
Posted by: BC

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 06:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held because the Articles of Confederation didn't work. Our Constitution is a compilation of many documents to limit government starting with the Magna Carta.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held because the Articles of Confederation didn't work. Our Constitution is a compilation of many documents to limit government starting with the Magna Carta.

...and amended many times because it was not perfect for then or any time, never will be perfect and will always need amending to stand the tests of time and the tests modern men, times and events toss in its path. It has been and is meant to be a living document, subject to interpretation and change.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: BC
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held because the Articles of Confederation didn't work. Our Constitution is a compilation of many documents to limit government starting with the Magna Carta.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held because the Articles of Confederation didn't work. Our Constitution is a compilation of many documents to limit government starting with the Magna Carta.

...and amended many times because it was not perfect for then or any time, never will be perfect and will always need amending to stand the tests of time and the tests modern men, times and events toss in its path. It has been and is meant to be a living document, subject to interpretation and change.

Nothing created by men is perfect. What our Founding Fathers got right when they wrote our Constitution was its limitation on the powers of our government. It lives because it can change but the authors of it knew that human nature and the lust for power would never change. That is why they wrote it, to put limits on man's lust for power.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 07:13 PM

Interesting thought... I don't think that anyone doubts the amazingly deep and powerful mentations that the founders put into the formation of our government. It is my far less learned opinion that the Constitution is more a document of guidance and problem-solving protocols than it is a set of immutable rules set down forever and ever (not that anyone here has asserted that). It is a good thing that it requires interpretation, as such dialogue, even if heated at times, keeps it alive.

Now for the interesting part - who amongst our national leadership, or aspirants for the office of President, do you think has the intellectual chops to have been a member of the Constitutional Convention?

Let's see... Elizabeth Warren, ............................ :ohsnap:
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 07:30 PM

What has changed in a very large way is that the people writing the Constitution were all gentlemen with a well developed sense of ethics and morality. Those who were not Christian were mostly Deists. They assumed that the White Gentlemen land-owners who ran the Republic would always do the right thing for the Republic. Unfortunately, this is far from true now but it is nothing new. Communism was doomed because it assumes "Each according to his ability, and each according his need." But humans are lazy and greedy, and fully half of them are lower than average intelligence.

"the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government" is a direct quote from Madison, that reflects this attitude. Well, guess what? There IS not sufficient virtue among men to run a country depending on that virtue. Charity seems to be filled with charlatons who buy private jets instead of feeding the poor. We tried for personal virtue, and it failed miserably.

So a government has to educate children, pay police and firemen, build roads, etc. because otherwise we have to live in Trump's proverbial shethole country.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 07:39 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
What has changed in a very large way is that the people writing the Constitution were all gentlemen with a well developed sense of ethics and morality. Those who were not Christian were mostly Deists. They assumed that the White Gentlemen land-owners who ran the Republic would always do the right thing for the Republic. Unfortunately, this is far from true now but it is nothing new. Communism was doomed because it assumes "Each according to his ability, and each according his need." But humans are lazy and greedy, and fully half of them are lower than average intelligence.

"the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government" is a direct quote from Madison, that reflects this attitude. Well, guess what? There IS not sufficient virtue among men to run a country depending on that virtue. Charity seems to be filled with charlatons who buy private jets instead of feeding the poor. We tried for personal virtue, and it failed miserably.

So a government has to educate children, pay police and firemen, build roads, etc. because otherwise we have to live in Trump's proverbial shethole country.

Yes, it the job of a government to do those things. The government whose job to do them is not our federal government but our state and local governments.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 08:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Nothing created by men is perfect. What our Founding Fathers got right when they wrote our Constitution was its limitation on the powers of our government.

How'd that powerful State's Rights 1776 attempt workout for them? Oh...that's right - it didn't.

It was replaced by a strong central government thingy in 1789. smile
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 08:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

Yes, it the job of a government to do those things. The government whose job to do them is not our federal government but our state and local governments.


It wasn't UNTIL a very few decades ago when anti-discrimation laws were passed that restaurants, hotels, gas stations, even restroom facilities were finally and YES FORCIBLY desegregated, that "the environment" got largely cleared of the kind of outright DANGERS to black motorists.



IT BECAME A SERIOUS CRIME to deny goods and services to people based on race, creed or color.
That is what it took to finally clear the logjam.

All the competitive pressure in the world was unable to stop a bunch of rednecks with shotguns, bullwhips, ropes and even MURIATIC ACID from exercising Jim Crow laws and "Sunset Town" warnings.



So it finally fell to the Federal Government to do the heavy lifting when states failed to do it for themselves.

The general welfare does not share your rather extreme anti-government bias.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 08:09 PM

Quote:
who amongst our national leadership, or aspirants for the office of President, do you think has the intellectual chops to have been a member of the Constitutional Convention?


Mostly the Constitutional scholars and experts who have demonstrated their intelligence and sense of fairness: Barack Obama, Laurence Tribe, Robert Reich. I had William F. Buckley in my list, but I see he died back in 2008 which says a lot about current Republican intellectualism.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 08:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
pdx rick did you run before you could walk? No, you did not. Just as you did not run before you could walk our government could not run, implement the radical ideas of freedom as widely as they are now, before it could walk. So for you to criticize our government's supposed failure to implement the radical ideas of freedom is at best 20/20 hindsight. At worst it is the ridiculous idea that someone could run before they could walk.


If the idea that the white man had inalienable rights, it would logically follow that women did too, and so did children, and so did slaves - basically everyone else also too had these same inalienable rights.

...but, because those "keep the status quo" aka "conserve and preserve" ideals got into the way - that didn't happen. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 08:17 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
who amongst our national leadership, or aspirants for the office of President, do you think has the intellectual chops to have been a member of the Constitutional Convention?


Mostly the Constitutional scholars and experts who have demonstrated their intelligence and sense of fairness: Barack Obama, Laurence Tribe, Robert Reich. I had William F. Buckley in my list, but I see he died back in 2008 which says a lot about current Republican intellectualism.

Thanks to the orange Fatass currently occupying the White House, Conservatives lost their momentum to hold a Constitutional re-write Convention by having the majority of State Legislatures of thirty-seven to rewrite the Constitution in the very stated goal of a very theocratic (God, guns and ammo) voice aka Sharia-lite.

smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 08:20 PM


ISIS or American Conservative?

• Theocracy for government
• Holy book as Science
• Their religion is the only real one
• Become violent when others speak against them
• Guns solve everything
• Accept only their own 'kind'

Hmm
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 09:21 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick

ISIS or American Conservative?

• Theocracy for government
• Holy book as Science
• Their religion is the only real one
• Become violent when others speak against them
• Guns solve everything
• Accept only their own 'kind'

Hmm

Here is another example of pdx rick's ignorance. I'm an atheist.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 09:50 PM

That the states were guilty of racial discrimination is a reason to not let any government be too powerful. It is the genius of our Constitution that gives our federal government the authority to enforce it when necessary. The "conservatives' who wrote, passed, and enforced segregation laws did so in violation of our Constitution. Segregation cannot exist without government approval and support.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." James Madison
The state governments did not control themselves. The idea that they could or would is why we have elections. However, when one political party, Democrats, controls state governments for decades the denial of a person's natural rights can and did happen.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 09:54 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
pdx rick did you run before you could walk? No, you did not. Just as you did not run before you could walk our government could not run, implement the radical ideas of freedom as widely as they are now, before it could walk. So for you to criticize our government's supposed failure to implement the radical ideas of freedom is at best 20/20 hindsight. At worst it is the ridiculous idea that someone could run before they could walk.


If the idea that the white man had inalienable rights, it would logically follow that women did too, and so did children, and so did slaves - basically everyone else also too had these same inalienable rights.

...but, because those "keep the status quo" aka "conserve and preserve" ideals got into the way - that didn't happen. smile

To assume that governments would act in a logical way is to expect that which cannot happen. All governments are run by human beings, who rarely behave logically.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 10:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
To assume that governments would act in a logical way is to expect that which cannot happen. All governments are run by human beings, who rarely behave logically.

No, ALL governments, until very recently, have been run by white patriarchal men. THAT was a problem.

smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 10:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
...Segregation cannot exist without government approval and support. .

Correct - and that hasn't happened since American government has became more progressive, inclusive, and diverse.

smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 10:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
However, when one political party, Democrats, controls state governments for decades the denial of a person's natural rights can and did happen.

If you're speaking to southern Democratic states, why do you insist on not telling the full story - that these states were run by Conservative Democrats?

Hmm
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 10:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick

ISIS or American Conservative?

• Theocracy for government
• Holy book as Science
• Their religion is the only real one
• Become violent when others speak against them
• Guns solve everything
• Accept only their own 'kind'

Hmm

Here is another example of pdx rick's ignorance. I'm an atheist.


If you are, you're dead meat if Trump 2020 "payback mode" kicks in.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 11:12 PM

Quote:
Here is another example of pdx rick's ignorance.


I didn't see anywhere that rick said Senator Hatrack was any sort of religion. He was actually talking about Evangelicals within the Conservative community trying to impose theocracy on everyone else, in spite of their religious or atheist beliefs. As an atheist, this should concern the Senator a lot more than the rest of us who let everyone believe we are nominally Christian.

This seems to be a major disconnect: We have Freedom of Religion right there in the Constitution, yet even though they insist that Atheism is a religion, they want to discriminate against them. For that matter, a lot of them want to discriminate against Jews and Muslims as well.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 11:40 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
For that matter, a lot of them want to discriminate against Jews and Muslims as well.

It's interesting to me that the American Evangelical will insist that Christianity is not one of the three Abrahamic religions, when, in fact it is.

American evangelicals are loathe to admit any connection to Islam, when there are many connections between the two religions.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/11/19 11:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Here is another example of pdx rick's ignorance. I'm an atheist.

So you check the rest of the boxes? smile Sorry that I #Trigger you, bro. My bad. Hmm
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 12:36 AM

Quote:

If you are, you're dead meat if Trump 2020 "payback mode" kicks in.

As someone is actively involved in Trump's reelection campaign, no I am not.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 12:37 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Here is another example of pdx rick's ignorance. I'm an atheist.

So you check the rest of the boxes? smile Sorry that I #Trigger you, bro. My bad. Hmm

I didn't and don't check any of the boxes.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 12:42 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
However, when one political party, Democrats, controls state governments for decades the denial of a person's natural rights can and did happen.

If you're speaking to southern Democratic states, why do you insist on not telling the full story - that these states were run by Conservative Democrats?

Hmm

I described what American Conservatism is. Yes, the Southern Democrats were conservative but conservatism is not always a good thing. Conservatism can be good or bad depending on what people are trying to conserve. Therefore any attempts to say that I am in agreement with the Southern Democrats is BS!
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 12:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Therefore any attempts to say that I am in agreement with the Southern Democrats is BS!

Really? Hmm

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
As someone is actively involved in Trump's reelection campaign, no I am not.

Trump is the front and center racist spokesperson for white nationalism. gobsmacked

Quote:
“I am the least racist person you have ever met."
- Trump

* Nixon’s Justice Department sued Trump and his father Fred for barring blacks from their apartment buildings, it has been known that the president is a racist — and a congenital one at that.

* The history of the Central Park Five (Trump called for the death penalty for the accused teens), or the history of blacks who worked at his casinos (fine paid for discrimination, and much more) in Atlantic City.

* “Laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control,” Trump said in a 1997 Playboy interview.

* “ Mexicans? “They’re rapists.” said Trump in 2015 after descending his gold elevator at Trump Tower

* White supremacists waving swastikas in Charlottesville? “Very fine people on both sides,” said Trump

* Haitian immigrants “all have AIDS,” said Trump

* African nations were “s---hole countries,” said Trump as POTUS

* “Once Nigerians have seen the United States, they would never ‘go back to their huts,’” said Trump
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 02:17 AM

Quote:
Conservatism can be good or bad depending on what people are trying to conserve.


There we get down to it. What matters is exactly what you are trying to conserve. Child labor? Feudalism? Slavery? Jim Crow? the fixation on any certain era as being worth conserving en total, is filled with things we don't want to conserve. So the very definition of "Conservative" is meaningless.

I like Free Speech and a Free Press. Those are things I want to conserve. I like Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, too, so I think we need to get rid of police asset forfeiture barring a conviction. I'm not religious, but I like Freedom of Religion as well, as long as it stays out of government.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 02:45 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
[quote=Senator Hatrack]Therefore any attempts to say that I am in agreement with the Southern Democrats is BS!

Really? Hmm

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
As someone is actively involved in Trump's reelection campaign, no I am not.

Trump is the front and center racist spokesperson for white nationalism. gobsmacked

Quote:
“I am the least racist person you have ever met."
- Trump

Quote:
* Nixon’s Justice Department sued Trump and his father Fred for barring blacks from their apartment buildings, it has been known that the president is a racist — and a congenital one at that.

This old news. The Justice Dept sued a large number of landlords in NYC for doing that. Trump and his father and many other landlords there stopped their discriminatory practices because of the lawsuit.
Quote:
* The history of the Central Park Five (Trump called for the death penalty for the accused teens), or the history of blacks who worked at his casinos (fine paid for discrimination, and much more) in Atlantic City.
Trump and millions of others believed that the death penalty for some crimes is warranted, regardless of the color of the skin of the person accused of a crime. Trump's real estate business has thousands of employees. He does not have the time to micromanage it. To be successful he has to let those in the management of his business make decisions. If he were to try to make every single decision in regards to the operation of his businesses he would have time to do anything else. As in every large business there will be some who are in management that should not be.

Quote:
* “Laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control,” Trump said in a 1997 Playboy interview.

Do you still believe everything you said in 1997? If you don't why should Trump, or anyone else, be expected to?
Quote:
* “ Mexicans? “They’re rapists.” said Trump in 2015 after descending his gold elevator at Trump Tower.

Since this "quote" of Trump's mentions his gold elevators the odds are very good that it was taken out of context.
Quote:
* White supremacists waving swastikas in Charlottesville? “Very fine people on both sides,” said Trump.

This was taken out of context. That comment was about the people in Charlottsville was in reference to two groups.
1) A group that wants a statue of Robert E. Lee taken down.
2) A group that wants the statue to remain standing.
He was not talking about the Neo-Nazis or Antifa.
Quote:
* Haitian immigrants “all have AIDS,” said Trump

Prove that Trump did say this.
Quote:
* African nations were “s---hole countries,” said Trump as POTUS

The source that quote is Sen. Dick Durbin. Durbin has a reputation for lying.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/25817/dic...edra#exit-modal
Quote:
* “Once Nigerians have seen the United States, they would never ‘go back to their huts,’” said Trump

Provide links to prove that Trump made that comment.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 03:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

The history of the Central Park Five (Trump called for the death penalty for the accused teens), or the history of blacks who worked at his casinos (fine paid for discrimination, and much more) in Atlantic City.
Trump and millions of others believed that the death penalty for some crimes is warranted, regardless of the color of the skin of the person accused of a crime. [/quote]

I think what you're missing is the fact that even after they were acquitted, even after DNA evidence came up blank, even after the real attacker CONFESSED!! Trump STILL DOUBLED DOWN, saying he STILL thinks they were guilty.


Quote:
* “Laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control,” Trump said in a 1997 Playboy interview.


Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

Do you still believe everything you said in 1997? If you don't why should Trump, or anyone else, be expected to?


Because when it comes to personality flaws of that nature, one needs to see indicators to the contrary. By all observable indicators, NOTHING has changed with regard to Trump's views on ethnic minorities. NOTHING.


Quote:
* White supremacists waving swastikas in Charlottesville? “Very fine people on both sides,” said Trump.


Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

This was taken out of context. That comment was about the people in Charlottsville was in reference to two groups.
1) A group that wants a statue of Robert E. Lee taken down.
2) A group that wants the statue to remain standing.
He was not talking about the Neo-Nazis or Antifa.


The BIG LIE about Charlottesville:



Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 03:30 AM

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...-sides-remarks/
Here is the interview in question. Pres. Trump was not referring to the Neo-Nazis or Antifa when he said there are very fine people on both sides. You didn't do much research to find the truth about the Charlottesville comments, all you did was go to a site that doesn't like Trump. Doing that is not a way to get the truth. Going to sources that reinforce your bias hurts your credibility, Jeffery. I took the time to find an unbiased source.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 04:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
This old news. The Justice Dept sued a large number of landlords in NYC for doing that. Trump and his father and many other landlords there stopped their discriminatory practices because of the lawsuit.

In other words, it's cool because "everyone" was doing it. smile


Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Trump's real estate business has thousands of employees. He does not have the time to micromanage it.

Your rejoinder has to do with the Central Park 5, how exactly? Hmm


Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Do you still believe everything you said in 1997?

Where's the personal responsibility that Conservatives advocate for? smile

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Since this "quote" of Trump's mentions his gold elevators the odds are very good that it was taken out of context.

Here's the full Trump quote: smile

Quote:
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
- Real Clear Politics


Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
This was taken out of context. That comment was about the people in Charlottsville was in reference to two groups.
1) A group that wants a statue of Robert E. Lee taken down.
2) A group that wants the statue to remain standing.
He was not talking about the Neo-Nazis or Antifa.

Here's an article you might enjoy: Debunking the ‘Charlottesville Hoax’ Theory Trump’s Defenders Are Using to Rewrite His Praise of White Nationalists

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Prove that Trump did say this.

Read and weep smile

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The source that quote is Sen. Dick Durbin. Durbin has a reputation for lying.

Read and weep:

Quote:
The White House issued a statement that did not deny the remarks...



Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Provide links to prove that Trump made that comment.

Ask, and Ye shall receive. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 04:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...-sides-remarks/
Here is the interview in question. Pres. Trump was not referring to the Neo-Nazis or Antifa when he said there are very fine people on both sides. You didn't do much research to find the truth about the Charlottesville comments, all you did was go to a site that doesn't like Trump. Doing that is not a way to get the truth. Going to sources that reinforce your bias hurts your credibility, Jeffery. I took the time to find an unbiased source.

Here is a YouTube of the "both sides" news conference. You can hear it straight from the Jackass' mouth. smile

Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 04:17 AM


I'd like to point out this basic fundamental difference between Conservatism and LIberalsism:

Conservatism is a top-down vertical hierarchy; Liberalism is horizontal where everyone is on the same equal plane.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 04:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...-sides-remarks/
Here is the interview in question. Pres. Trump was not referring to the Neo-Nazis or Antifa when he said there are very fine people on both sides. You didn't do much research to find the truth about the Charlottesville comments, all you did was go to a site that doesn't like Trump. Doing that is not a way to get the truth. Going to sources that reinforce your bias hurts your credibility, Jeffery. I took the time to find an unbiased source.


I am getting the impression you did not watch the clip if you say that, because each and every media outlet's coverage was dissected.
It wasn't a "site", it's a YouTube video...that's another indicator you didn't even listen to it at all.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 10:52 PM

Why should I watch the video? I read a transcript of the interview and it shows that Pres. Trump did not say that "there are nice people on both sides" in reference to the Neo-Nazis and Antifa. Of course since I said that all the lefties who hate Trump and who twist everything he says into something negative will attack me. While there were some Republicans who hated Pres. Obama they were a minority in the GOP. There are very few, if any, lefties who will say something nice about Trump. I sure would love to see that I am wrong about the hatred for Trump but I ain't going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/12/19 11:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Why should I watch the video? I read a transcript of the interview and it shows that Pres. Trump did not say that "there are nice people on both sides" in reference to the Neo-Nazis and Antifa. Of course since I said that all the lefties who hate Trump and who twist everything he says into something negative will attack me. While there were some Republicans who hated Pres. Obama they were a minority in the GOP. There are very few, if any, lefties who will say something nice about Trump. I sure would love to see that I am wrong about the hatred for Trump but I ain't going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.


You should watch the video because it proves that PragerU is practicing yellow journalism.
But you go ahead and feed that allergy.
I'll actually go ahead and read those critical books about FDR like you suggested (when they get here) but how nice of you not to accommodate my suggestion by devoting a couple of minutes to watch a video. (Actually it's mostly listening)
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 02:13 AM

I didn't need to watch the video to know that PragerU lies. You could get the books about FDR from your public library. FDR's Folly, New Deal Raw Deal, Three New Deals in case you've forgotten the titles of them.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 02:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I didn't need to watch the video to know that PragerU lies.


Let it go. I can tell you're terrified about what you might learn if you watch it and I don't want to frighten you wink

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

You could get the books about FDR from your public library. FDR's Folly, New Deal Raw Deal, Three New Deals in case you've forgotten the titles of them.


No no, I will buy them, thanks.
That said, I am not fond of reading either hagiographies nor brickbats. Instead I read factual accounts and make my own decisions.
I read history texts.

The point is, you won't watch the video.
I get that now.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 02:31 AM

I forgot to say "But I did." Like I said my typing isn't that great and my memory is almost as bad.
blush frown
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 04:44 AM


Fatass Trump:

Quote:
Good people on both sides.

Nope, there were not. Neo-NAZIs, white supremacists, Alt-Right are not good people.

Hmm
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 02:24 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick

Fatass Trump:

Quote:
Good people on both sides.

Nope, there were not. Neo-NAZIs, white supremacists, Alt-Right are not good people.

Hmm

Ever drive a Volkswagen (the People's Wagon)? It was created by the Nazis. Do you support Planned Parenthood? It's founder, Margaret Sanger, was a white supremacist. What people call the Alt-Right are really leftists who are erroneously considered to be right wingers.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 03:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick

Fatass Trump:

Quote:
Good people on both sides.

Nope, there were not. Neo-NAZIs, white supremacists, Alt-Right are not good people.

Hmm

Ever drive a Volkswagen (the People's Wagon)? It was created by the Nazis. Do you support Planned Parenthood? It's founder, Margaret Sanger, was a white supremacist. What people call the Alt-Right are really leftists who are erroneously considered to be right wingers.


Who was not a White Supremacist/Raciest in the late 1800 and early 1900 hundreds?

Yes, she advocated birth control which is not abortion. She advocated contraception as a way to avoid the need for abortion. She also founded a birth control clinic in Harlem in 1921. Does not mean she was not raciest it just means she at least tried to treat all fairly. Oh, I do support a women's right to choose and not the churches' and governments' assertion they have a right to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 03:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
To conserve something is to want to preserve and protect it. American Conservatives want to return our government to doing only what is listed in Article I Section 8 of our Constitution. Anything that is not expressly authorized by it is to be either eliminated or done by the various state or local governments.
I have to quibble with this statement, as it is often made and consistently wrong. The powers of the government are explicitly NOT all contained in Article I, Section 8, and that provision itself is often misinterpreted by "so-called" conservatives. To wit: Section 1. provides that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Section 4 (in pertinent parts), "the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations," and "unless they shall by law appoint a different day." Section 10 (in pertinent part) "all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress." There are many other examples. Section 8 deals entirely with the collection and expenditure of taxes, and contains the proviso "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." If Section 8 were exclusive, this phrase would be meaningless. It is not.

Moreover, Article I, Section 8, cl. 1, explicitly states that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States[.]" These are coextensive authorities, yet I have noticed that conservatives like to ignore one, but have no qualms about extending the other. It is, frankly, a ridiculous argument and it irritates me exceedingly.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 03:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held because the Articles of Confederation didn't work. Our Constitution is a compilation of many documents to limit government starting with the Magna Carta.
This is a consistent, and again consistently wrong, refrain of conservatives. That was the position of the "anti-federalists". Who, explicitly and unquestionably, lost the argument in the creation of the Constitution, as they opposed a strong central government, but the Hamiltonians won out. That Jefferson eventually saw the error of his ways is often ignored as "inconvenient".
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 03:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick

Fatass Trump:

Quote:
Good people on both sides.

Nope, there were not. Neo-NAZIs, white supremacists, Alt-Right are not good people.

Hmm

Ever drive a Volkswagen (the People's Wagon)? It was created by the Nazis. Do you support Planned Parenthood? It's founder, Margaret Sanger, was a white supremacist.


One of the absolute worst deathtraps ever made.
Swing-arm rear suspension that can roll the car at fifteen miles per hour, a #3 cylinder permanently starved for cooling by design, splash lubrication, and who's bright idea was it to separate vehicle wiring from the trunk mounted gas tank with a piece of cardboard while the gas cap was located INSIDE the trunk?

Yours truly circa 1973


The only reason people bought them was they were cheap as hell and got 26 mpg. They sure didn't buy them because they were good cars.
Ralph Nader was eager to kill the Corvair but the Nazi deathtrap was much worse.

So what if Margaret Sanger was a white supremacist?
That doesn't mean that the people who work there today are all white supremacists, it means a misguided woman accidentally did something useful and it grew legs and went on to provide essential healthcare and family planning for several generations of families.

Dr. Werner von Braun was a Nazi but once captured, he knew what side his bread was buttered on and said so. The Americans were superior, and he wanted to be an American, and lead America to victory in the space race. He wasn't interested in Hitler's ideology, he was interested in rockets.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

What people call the Alt-Right are really leftists who are erroneously considered to be right wingers.


This one is absurd. You're basically saying that all those people marching with swastikas saw this poster and went to the wrong rally?



So, if they were actually left wingers (but carrying swastikas) why were they fighting Antifa? Senator, turn off Fox News.
It's polluting your ability to think critically!
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 03:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick

Fatass Trump:

Quote:
Good people on both sides.

Nope, there were not. Neo-NAZIs, white supremacists, Alt-Right are not good people.

Hmm

Ever drive a Volkswagen (the People's Wagon)? It was created by the Nazis. Do you support Planned Parenthood? It's founder, Margaret Sanger, was a white supremacist. What people call the Alt-Right are really leftists who are erroneously considered to be right wingers.


Who was not a White Supremacist/Raciest in the late 1800 and early 1900 hundreds?

Yes, she advocated birth control which is not abortion. She advocated contraception as a way to avoid the need for abortion. She also founded a birth control clinic in Harlem in 1921. Does not mean she was not raciest it just means she at least tried to treat all fairly. Oh, I do support a women's right to choose and not the churches' and governments' assertion they have a right to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body

If Margaret Sanger was not a white supremacist why did she speak at a KKK rally? She was a eugenicist. Eugenics is the pseudoscience of trying to create a master race of humans by selective breeding.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/planned-parenthood-founder-spoke-to-kkk-but-photo-is-fake/
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 04:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

If Margaret Sanger was not a white supremacist why did she speak at a KKK rally? She was a eugenicist. Eugenics is the pseudoscience of trying to create a master race of humans by selective breeding.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/planned-parenthood-founder-spoke-to-kkk-but-photo-is-fake/


Using your logic, we can play the "sins of the father" game all the way back to Adam and Eve and all the way forward to the present day.
Did either of your parents ever kill a prize chicken for dinner?
Ergo, you support animal abuse and so do your kids!

Margaret Sanger is dead. Birth control, family planning and women's health services are very much alive. Planned Parenthood offices, which used to be segregated in the Jim Crow era, aren't segregated today.

My pediatrician's office on Connecticut Avenue in Washington DC had a segregated waiting room, which my mother uncomfortably ignored until I asked about it at age six. She promptly switched doctors and we never saw that doctor again.
Posted by: Greger

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 04:08 PM

Y'know, the Civil war wasn't about racism. All white people back then were racist. Most of them still are. You can be a racist and be against slavery. Hell, you can be a racist and be against racism. Lincoln was a racist. This business of judging historical characters by modern society's standards is a bit whack. Eugenics was cutting edge science at one time, today we have gene splicing. Ethical issues like this usually iron themselves out over time.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 04:09 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
The sole intent of all documents leading to the US Constitution was not to limit government by size but to prevent government from enslaving its citizenry.
WOOT!
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 04:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Anything that is not expressly authorized by it is to be either eliminated or done by the various state or local governments.
  • Women's right to vote
  • Minorites right to vote
  • Gay Marriage
  • Due process for non-whites
  • Women's right to control their bodies
  • The right to own land if non-white male
Thanks for the reminder of why Conservatism is a racist and bigoted ideology, Senator Hatrack. smile

This comment is another example of judging our Constitution by today's standards. When it was written the right to vote, even when it was limited to white males, was an extremely radical idea! That extending the right to vote to women and minorities was unfortunately something that took time to do. The state of Wyoming gave women the right to vote before our federal government did. That is why I said there are somethings the states should do. The Fifth Amendment is color blind. Sadly the enforcement of it was not. Again that is something that took time to accomplish. Ever since the days when we were colonies of England people of color could and did own land. Gay marriage is a long overdue idea but it is not banned by our Constitution. It isn't because marriage, gay or straight, is not mentioned in our Constitution. The idea of women controlling their bodies is also a recent one, which it is why it is not mention in our Constitution either.
Not much to disagree with, here, my friend, but not very "conservative", either. Just reasonable and rational. The late, unlamented Justice Scalia would have seen it differently, though. He had no ken with those radical notions of "inherent rights". The founders did, of course, but he only followed their prescriptions when convenient.

Once upon a time (and still in some circles) I was considered a conservative. But the reactionary revanchists that masquerade under that rubric now are unrecognizable to the conservative I was then.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 04:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Eugenics is the pseudoscience of trying to create a master race of humans by selective breeding.


Actually it's not pseudoscience, it's very real science, however the notion that it can create a master race is questionable, but selective breeding isn't questionable at all because humans selectively breed all the time. It's just that normally it would be the two humans in question making the choices rather than an outside entity.

But even then, outside people have been making those choices for millennia. That's what arranged marriages are all about. The matchmaker or the two families agree on who will marry.
That IS selective breeding in every respect.

And then we get to the very definition of "master race" itself.
Is a master race put together with the intention of its members being smarter, healthier and more desirable, or is it an effort to confine the genetics, or is global domination the objective?

The first one is just human nature. People naturally want to breed with smarter, healthier and more desirable partners.
Water however, seeks its own level, doesn't it?

The other two are both foolish and dangerous because they've both been tried countless times. The latter racial restriction, is downright dangerous because Nature doesn't tolerate racial purity.

Eventually such restrictions begin to turn out a race of retarded people. See Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, where insular communities in Arizona, Colorado and Utah are experiencing profound mental disabilities in an alarming number of births.

Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 04:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
[quote=pdx rick]
Fatass Trump:

Quote:
Good people on both sides.

Nope, there were not. Neo-NAZIs, white supremacists, Alt-Right are not good people.

Hmm

Ever drive a Volkswagen (the People's Wagon)? It was created by the Nazis. Do you support Planned Parenthood? It's founder, Margaret Sanger, was a white supremacist.


Quote:
One of the absolute worst deathtraps ever made.
Swing-arm rear suspension that can roll the car at fifteen miles per hour, a #3 cylinder permanently starved for cooling by design, splash lubrication, and who's bright idea was it to separate vehicle wiring from the trunk mounted gas tank with a piece of cardboard while the gas cap was located INSIDE the trunk?

Yours truly circa 1973


The only reason people bought them was they were cheap as hell and got 26 mpg. They sure didn't buy them because they were good cars.
Ralph Nader was eager to kill the Corvair but the Nazi deathtrap was much worse.

The Volkswagen was not a shining example of German engineering. But it was designed by the Nazis.

Quote:
So what if Margaret Sanger was a white supremacist?
That doesn't mean that the people who work there today are all white supremacists, it means a misguided woman accidentally did something useful and it grew legs and went on to provide essential healthcare and family planning for several generations of families.

What Margaret Sanger was is worse than being a white supremacist. She was a eugenicist. Eugenics is the pseudoscience of trying to create a (white) master race by selective breeding. The Nazis were big fans of the American Eugenicists. So much so that they used the Jim Crow laws as a guide for their race laws. (This is the second time I've posted this link.)

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

What people call the Alt-Right are really leftists who are erroneously considered to be right wingers.


Quote:
This one is absurd. You're basically saying that all those people marching with swastikas saw this poster and went to the wrong rally?



Quote:
So, if they were actually left wingers (but carrying swastikas) why were they fighting Antifa? Senator, turn off Fox News.
It's polluting your ability to think critically!

One does not need to carry or wear a swastika to be antisemitic. (This is NOT red baiting but a statement of facts!) The Communists, and Russians, have a long history of antisemitism.
https://stmuhistorymedia.org/the-communi...comment-page-1/
While the Communist's antisemitism ebbed and flowed it was still a part of their world view. That is why Jews in the USSR who wanted to emigrate to Israel were, if not put in the gulags, harassed and discriminated against. The idea that Antifa is an anti-fascist organization is a lie! They are a modern day version of Mussolini's Black Shirts.

In regards to my watching FOX News you have made a mistake that many people of the left have made while in political discussions with me. In order to watch FOX News it is necessary to have either a subscription to cable or satellite TV. I do not have either of them. Therefore I cannot watch FOX News. This comment is not say that you are leftist but that you have made a mistake about what I watch on TV. I don't watch TV.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 04:52 PM

Alchemy was the pseudoscience that became chemistry. Eugenics is the pseudoscience that has become genetic research.
Posted by: Greger

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 04:52 PM

Quote:
I don't watch TV.

An admirable trait in a man. I'm pretty sure that televised news is the very worst possible way to find out what's going on in the world.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 04:53 PM

However, you do have a connection to the internet.

www.foxnews.com

www.foxandfriends.com

I do try and read them; I need balance, but it is trying reading them.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 04:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The idea that Antifa is an anti-fascist organization is a lie! They are a modern day version of Mussolini's Black Shirts.



You're going to have to back that up.
My maternal grandparents were forced out of their own businesses by Mussolini's Blackshirts. There was nothing socialist or lefty about it either.
You cannot make such uninformed statements without proof, sir.

Antifa in the USA are a handful of spoiled rich suburbanite kids who thought the German punk rock squatter ersatz Antifa were cool, so they emulate them but the 1930s Antifa in Europe specifically fought pitched street battles with the NSDAP.

And, of course, just like the pitched street battles being pitched here, they accomplished nothing.

And those groups, Antifa USA, the 1980's German squatter Antifa and the originals from the 1930s, were all Communists.

The black flag represents Anarchy, the red flag represents Communism.
Antifa is largely a Communist group.

Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 05:03 PM

Eugenics came after Genetics. Genetics 1865, Eugenics 1883

Eugenics - "In 1883, one year after Darwin's death, Galton gave his research a name: eugenics. With the introduction of genetics, eugenics became associated with genetic determinism, the belief that human character is entirely or in the majority caused by genes, unaffected by education or living conditions." A quick quote from a Google search.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 05:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

One does not need to carry or wear a swastika to be antisemitic.


No, one can wear a suit and tie, like Richard Spencer, or David Duke.
In fact, the notion of doing away with the shaved heads, swastikas and hoods is even alluded to in popular drama.

If you want, you can skip to 2:23 in the clip, or watch the whole thing. I recommend watching the entire movie.

American History X(film)

Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 05:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
However, you do have a connection to the internet.

www.foxnews.com

www.foxandfriends.com

I do try and read them; I need balance, but it is trying reading them.

Yes, watching foxnews.com or foxandfriends.com is a way to balance out the leftist media. But I have spent more time on the CHBRR in the last week than I have spent on those websites this year.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 05:37 PM

When it comes to sartorial splendor few gentlemen can beat Pres. Obama.

Thanks for reminding me about a great movie! I'm going to get from Netflix. I tried watching the clip but the audio was bad even though I had my speakers at 10.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 05:41 PM

Just for the record, and maybe to get back to the subject of my original post, it is my opinion that Pres. Trump is about as much an American Conservative as he is an eloquent extemporaneous public speaker.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 06:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
When it comes to sartorial splendor few gentlemen can beat Pres. Obama.

Thanks for reminding me about a great movie! I'm going to get from Netflix. I tried watching the clip but the audio was bad even though I had my speakers at 10.


I can only say that it seems like your speakers might need help because when I tried to video chat with you via my very excellent desktop setup it was impossible.

The audio in the clip isn't as good as the original film but to be honest, it's actually not too bad.
I suspect your speakers or your sound card.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 06:18 PM

"My maternal grandparents were forced out of their own businesses by Mussolini's Blackshirts. There was nothing socialist or lefty about it either."
Before Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile created Fascism they were both Socialists. They created Fascism because they saw that the future predicted by Marx in his writings was not happening. To make Socialism advance, as the good socialists that they were, they created Fascism as an updating of the ideas of Marx.
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/fascisms-karl-marx/
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 06:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
"My maternal grandparents were forced out of their own businesses by Mussolini's Blackshirts. There was nothing socialist or lefty about it either."
Before Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile created Fascism they were both Socialists. They created Fascism because they saw that the future predicted by Marx in his writings was not happening. To make Socialism advance, as the good socialists that they were, they created Fascism as an updating of the ideas of Marx.
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/fascisms-karl-marx/


By moving it all to the extreme right.
When you marinate fish in lye, does the meat turn acid or alkaline by pH reading?

Again, must I explain the difference between a collective and a cartel?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 07:08 PM

By the way, you DO realize that D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist who thinks that the recent mail bombing attempts on Democrats was all part of a "false flag" campaign of

Quote:
"Fake sexual assault victims. Fake refugees. Now fake mail bombs."


MAIL BOMBS ARE 'FALSE FLAG' TO DISTRACT FROM 'HORDES OF ILLEGAL ALIENS,' CLAIM CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS

And yet somehow authorities managed to capture and arrest a very REAL person, who was not an actor!
Cesar Sayoc




Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 07:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
By the way, you DO realize that D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist who thinks that the recent mail bombing attempts on Democrats was all part of a "false flag" campaign of

Quote:
"Fake sexual assault victims. Fake refugees. Now fake mail bombs."


MAIL BOMBS ARE 'FALSE FLAG' TO DISTRACT FROM 'HORDES OF ILLEGAL ALIENS,' CLAIM CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS

And yet somehow authorities managed to capture and arrest a very REAL person, who was not an actor!
Cesar Sayoc





Another attempt to discredit the source because you can't refute what it says.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 07:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
By the way, you DO realize that D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist who thinks that the recent mail bombing attempts on Democrats was all part of a "false flag" campaign of

Quote:
"Fake sexual assault victims. Fake refugees. Now fake mail bombs."


MAIL BOMBS ARE 'FALSE FLAG' TO DISTRACT FROM 'HORDES OF ILLEGAL ALIENS,' CLAIM CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS

And yet somehow authorities managed to capture and arrest a very REAL person, who was not an actor!
Cesar Sayoc





Another attempt to discredit the source because you can't refute what it says.


Discrediting the source is sometimes a valid tool, when it is clear the source is spinning lies.
I refuted D'Souza by merely pointing out that his false flag argument was in fact a lie. Cesar Sayoc is not an actor and he got twenty years for his bombing attempts.
And he's one of YOURS.

You can't hide behind convenient pablums like "discrediting the source because you can't refute" when in point of fact the source WAS REFUTED.

Dinesh D'Souza is a convicted criminal AND a liar, and a revisionist.

On May 20, 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty in federal court to one felony charge of using a "straw donor" to make an illegal campaign contribution to a 2012 United States Senate campaign. On September 23, he was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house near his home in San Diego, five years probation, and a $30,000 fine.

And of course...
On May 31, 2018, D'Souza was issued a full pardon by President Donald Trump.

But bear in mind that a pardon does not mean you're guilty, it just means you've been pardoned for your crime.

Bill Clinton pardoned hardened criminals too.
Doesn't mean that Marc Rich wasn't a criminal.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 07:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
"My maternal grandparents were forced out of their own businesses by Mussolini's Blackshirts. There was nothing socialist or lefty about it either."
Before Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile created Fascism they were both Socialists. They created Fascism because they saw that the future predicted by Marx in his writings was not happening. To make Socialism advance, as the good socialists that they were, they created Fascism as an updating of the ideas of Marx.
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/fascisms-karl-marx/


By moving it all to the extreme right.
When you marinate fish in lye, does the meat turn acid or alkaline by pH reading?

Again, must I explain the difference between a collective and a cartel?

Those on the left must belief that Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology because they want to distance themselves from it. The idea that Fascism is a right wing ideology was started by Josef Stalin. He said that because anyone who disagreed with him or was a threat to his power was a "fascist" rightist anti-revolutionary.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch20-4.htm
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 07:41 PM

Speaking of bombers Bill Ayers is a convicted bomber who served his time and has gone on to be a respected professor. A felon who was very helpful in getting Barack H. Obama's political career started. Apparently it is alright associate with a felon if they are a liberal.
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/p...m-the-beginning
"Dinesh D'Souza is a convicted criminal AND a liar, and a revisionist.

On May 20, 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty in federal court to one felony charge of using a "straw donor" to make an illegal campaign contribution to a 2012 United States Senate campaign. On September 23, he was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house near his home in San Diego, five years probation, and a $30,000 fine."

If this is not a further attempt to discredit the source I'm going to make a fortune putting swimming pools on the sun!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 08:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Speaking of bombers Bill Ayers is a convicted bomber who served his time and has gone on to be a respected professor. A felon who was very helpful in getting Barack H. Obama's political career started. Apparently it is alright associate with a felon if they are a liberal.
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/p...m-the-beginning
"Dinesh D'Souza is a convicted criminal AND a liar, and a revisionist.

On May 20, 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty in federal court to one felony charge of using a "straw donor" to make an illegal campaign contribution to a 2012 United States Senate campaign. On September 23, he was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house near his home in San Diego, five years probation, and a $30,000 fine."

If this is not a further attempt to discredit the source I'm going to make a fortune putting swimming pools on the sun!


Whataboutism detected, with a potential charge of Gish Galloping.
Are we talking about Obama now?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 08:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
"My maternal grandparents were forced out of their own businesses by Mussolini's Blackshirts. There was nothing socialist or lefty about it either."
Before Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile created Fascism they were both Socialists. They created Fascism because they saw that the future predicted by Marx in his writings was not happening. To make Socialism advance, as the good socialists that they were, they created Fascism as an updating of the ideas of Marx.
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/fascisms-karl-marx/


By moving it all to the extreme right.
When you marinate fish in lye, does the meat turn acid or alkaline by pH reading?

Again, must I explain the difference between a collective and a cartel?

Those on the left must belief that Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology because they want to distance themselves from it. The idea that Fascism is a right wing ideology was started by Josef Stalin. He said that because anyone who disagreed with him or was a threat to his power was a "fascist" rightist anti-revolutionary.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch20-4.htm


Nowhere in that article does the phrase:

Quote:
because anyone who disagreed with him or was a threat to his power was a "fascist" rightist anti-revolutionary.

ever appear.

Sir, this is the weakest of weak sauces.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 08:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
"My maternal grandparents were forced out of their own businesses by Mussolini's Blackshirts. There was nothing socialist or lefty about it either."
Before Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile created Fascism they were both Socialists. They created Fascism because they saw that the future predicted by Marx in his writings was not happening. To make Socialism advance, as the good socialists that they were, they created Fascism as an updating of the ideas of Marx.
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/fascisms-karl-marx/


By moving it all to the extreme right.
When you marinate fish in lye, does the meat turn acid or alkaline by pH reading?

Again, must I explain the difference between a collective and a cartel?

Those on the left must belief that Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology because they want to distance themselves from it. The idea that Fascism is a right wing ideology was started by Josef Stalin. He said that because anyone who disagreed with him or was a threat to his power was a "fascist" rightist anti-revolutionary.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch20-4.htm


Nowhere in that article does the phrase:

Quote:
because anyone who disagreed with him or was a threat to his power was a "fascist" rightist anti-revolutionary.

ever appear.

I never said it did. I wrote the phrase because it is how Stalin saw anyone who disagreed with him.

Quote:
Sir, this is the weakest of weak sauces.

At times the truth is tepid but it is still the truth.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 08:20 PM

In regards to Bill Ayers and Barrack H. Obama you ignored this comment.
"Apparently it is alright associate with a felon if they are a liberal."
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 09:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
In regards to Bill Ayers and Barrack H. Obama you ignored this comment.
"Apparently it is alright associate with a felon if they are a liberal."


No I didn't ignore it.
Obama isn't off the hook on that but I ask you, what specifically did Obama do that is directly attributable to Bill Ayers?
Give me a policy position, or an EO or some statement he made that is directly tied to the positions, statements or deeds of Bill Ayers.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 09:40 PM

Politician's launch their careers with the support of people who agree with them. If Bill Ayers did not agree with Barrack Obama he would not have let Obama launch his political career in his home. The mere act of having Obama's political career start in his home shows that Ayers and Obama were in agreement on many subjects.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 09:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Politician's launch their careers with the support of people who agree with them. If Bill Ayers did not agree with Barrack Obama he would not have let Obama launch his political career in his home. The mere act of having Obama's political career start in his home shows that Ayers and Obama were in agreement on many subjects.


Then you should have no difficulty drawing a bright line that connects the two!
Posted by: rporter314

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 09:52 PM

Quote:
Another attempt to discredit the source because you can't refute what it says.

LOL

One of the most amazing "facts" about argumentation is the tactic used by "conservatives" of finding a real live, true, valid, someone did say it, fact and then conclude whatever outlandish, extremist, false piece of propaganda one can concoct.

So how does one refute a source's delusional opinion??? It's kind of like trying to disprove dragons exist. If you say they exist, I can't prove they don't. Does that make your statement true or valid?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 10:03 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Another attempt to discredit the source because you can't refute what it says.

LOL

One of the most amazing "facts" about argumentation is the tactic used by "conservatives" of finding a real live, true, valid, someone did say it, fact and then conclude whatever outlandish, extremist, false piece of propaganda one can concoct.

So how does one refute a source's delusional opinion??? It's kind of like trying to disprove dragons exist. If you say they exist, I can't prove they don't. Does that make your statement true or valid?




And there's the demand to prove a negative, which I am expecting any minute.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 10:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Politician's launch their careers with the support of people who agree with them. If Bill Ayers did not agree with Barrack Obama he would not have let Obama launch his political career in his home. The mere act of having Obama's political career start in his home shows that Ayers and Obama were in agreement on many subjects.


Then you should have no difficulty drawing a bright line that connects the two!

I did. The fact that Obama's career began with Ayers' help is a very bright line of their connection.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 10:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

I did. The fact that Obama's career began with Ayers' help is a very bright line of their connection.


Give me a policy position, or an EO or some statement he made that is directly tied to the positions, statements or deeds of Bill Ayers.
Something more than giving a talk or a coffee.

Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 10:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Yours truly circa 1973


Far out, man. Peace. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 10:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
...Margaret Sanger...

Ms. Sanger advocated for birth control. Remember, back in her day, white people was the super majority. Her sage was to help poor white folks out of their vicious circle that large families equal poverty. Advising black women came second.

Margaret Sanger: Less is more. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 11:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Y'know, the Civil war wasn't about racism.

Tell the State of Georgia that. It says specifically in their declaration of leaving the Union that slavery was the reason for their leaving. Hmm
Posted by: Greger

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/13/19 11:48 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Greger
Y'know, the Civil war wasn't about racism.

Tell the State of Georgia that. It says specifically in their declaration of leaving the Union that slavery was the reason for their leaving. Hmm
Well, yes Rick, the war was about slavery, not racism...
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 02:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

I did. The fact that Obama's career began with Ayers' help is a very bright line of their connection.


Give me a policy position, or an EO or some statement he made that is directly tied to the positions, statements or deeds of Bill Ayers.
Something more than giving a talk or a coffee.


I would guess that you have never run for political office, Jeffery, I have. From my experience I know that people have their friends over to their home to introduce them and to raise funds for a candidate they support. If they didn't support and agree with the candidate they would not have the meet and greet fundraiser in their home. When starting a political campaign and career you associate with people who agree with you. The fact Bill Ayers opened his home for Barrack H. Obama to use it to start his political career shows that they were in agreement on many issues. One of them probably was their mutual admiration for Saul Alinsky.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 03:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Greger
Y'know, the Civil war wasn't about racism.

Tell the State of Georgia that. It says specifically in their declaration of leaving the Union that slavery was the reason for their leaving. Hmm
Well, yes Rick, the war was about slavery, not racism...

gobsmacked
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 03:37 AM



Wait! shocked How is owning black skinned humans not racist? Hmm
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 03:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

I did. The fact that Obama's career began with Ayers' help is a very bright line of their connection.


Give me a policy position, or an EO or some statement he made that is directly tied to the positions, statements or deeds of Bill Ayers.
Something more than giving a talk or a coffee.


I would guess that you have never run for political office, Jeffery, I have. From my experience I know that people have their friends over to their home to introduce them and to raise funds for a candidate they support. If they didn't support and agree with the candidate they would not have the meet and greet fundraiser in their home. When starting a political campaign and career you associate with people who agree with you. The fact Bill Ayers opened his home for Barrack H. Obama to use it to start his political career shows that they were in agreement on many issues. One of them probably was their mutual admiration for Saul Alinsky.


I would daresay that Saul Alinsky might have been the biggest thing that they had in common. Nobody denies that Obama admired Alinsky.
Guess who else admires his book (as they misuse it today) ??
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 11:07 AM



Conservatives have no core values that can't be sacrificed in the name of political expedience or profit: Southern Strategy, Voodoo Economics, and fear mongering.

Hmm
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 02:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Just for the record, and maybe to get back to the subject of my original post, it is my opinion that Pres. Trump is about as much an American Conservative as he is an eloquent extemporaneous public speaker.
I couldn't agree more. But then, what do you make of all of those supposed "conservatives" who follow his lead on everything?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 02:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
"My maternal grandparents were forced out of their own businesses by Mussolini's Blackshirts. There was nothing socialist or lefty about it either."
Before Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile created Fascism they were both Socialists. They created Fascism because they saw that the future predicted by Marx in his writings was not happening. To make Socialism advance, as the good socialists that they were, they created Fascism as an updating of the ideas of Marx.
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/fascisms-karl-marx/
Well, there's your problem right there, friend. Relying on Dinesh D'Souza for anything is like expecting poetry from the white pages. I can't think of a less principled propagandist, except James O'Keefe, or less reliable source for history.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 02:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
"My maternal grandparents were forced out of their own businesses by Mussolini's Blackshirts. There was nothing socialist or lefty about it either."
Before Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile created Fascism they were both Socialists. They created Fascism because they saw that the future predicted by Marx in his writings was not happening. To make Socialism advance, as the good socialists that they were, they created Fascism as an updating of the ideas of Marx.
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/fascisms-karl-marx/


By moving it all to the extreme right.
When you marinate fish in lye, does the meat turn acid or alkaline by pH reading?

Again, must I explain the difference between a collective and a cartel?

Those on the left must belief that Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology because they want to distance themselves from it. The idea that Fascism is a right wing ideology was started by Josef Stalin. He said that because anyone who disagreed with him or was a threat to his power was a "fascist" rightist anti-revolutionary.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch20-4.htm
OMG, I didn't think you'd follow that long discredited conspiracy theory in writing! Were the Nazis Socialists? (Britannica)
Quote:
To say that Hitler understood the value of language would be an enormous understatement. Propaganda played a significant role in his rise to power. To that end, he paid lip service to the tenets suggested by a name like National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but his primary—indeed, sole—focus was on achieving power whatever the cost and advancing his racist, anti-Semitic agenda. After the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch, in November 1923, Hitler became convinced that he needed to utilize the teetering democratic structures of the Weimar government to attain his goals.
...
Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character. Within two months Hitler achieved full dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month.
Just reinjecting a little reality into the false narrative.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 02:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Whataboutism detected, with a potential charge of Gish Galloping.
Are we talking about Obama now?
Of course! Didn't you know Obama was a classic conservative?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 02:56 PM

I have now caught up to myself in the thread! Woot! I have to admit, friend Hatrack, it has been a challenge to follow all the canards, diversions, and misstatements of fact in your posts, but it has been fun! But, returning to the topic of the thread (I think), what I think you perceive as "conservatism" (other than anti-anything-leftish) no longer exists in common political parlance, but is consigned to the history books (not by Dinesh D'Souza). I would contend it never actually existed, in point of fact.

There are two perceptions/deceptions everyone carries: Self and other. We see ourselves one way, and tell ourselves we are such-and-such (liberal, conservative, rational, etc.), and the outside world sees us as something different. It can be "somewhat" different, or radically different.

Conservatism, as a philosophy, has never really existed. The intellectuals of the "movement" list off the various "forebears" of their viewpoint (it's not, strictly speaking, a philosophy, but a habit of thought), who also, it turns out, are the same forebears of Liberal thought (Mills, Locke, Adams). Interesting, no? They cobble together "principles", but any directed examination of their "standards" reveals them to be ephemera, honored more often in the breach than in the practice.

Like the question of forebears, both Liberals and Conservatives wrap themselves in the mantle of patriotism, champions of liberty, protector of civil rights, etc. Some of us just live those principles better than others. A challenge, today, is to find anyone in political or literary life who actually follows those principles, who lives them. One certainly doesn't find them in the Republican party.

Today, those that try to pass themselves off as "conservatives" are anything but. If one were to put it on a continuum, I suppose it would be radical, liberal, left, right, conservative, reactionary, revanchist. The "Freedom caucus", Federalist Society, and Trumpists have no relationship to "conservatism" other than a thin veneer or patina (any more than Hitler was a Socialist). In the OP, Senator Hatrack opined that conservatives want to "conserve", as the name implies. That impulse does not exist in those groups. They want to tear down, segregate, destroy, reverse, upend. Seriously, name one contemporary "conservative" figure who seeks to preserve anything of note. I'll wait.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 03:28 PM

class hierarchy?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 04:05 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
class hierarchy?
Whatever is that in reference to?
Posted by: Greger

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 04:34 PM

Class hierarchy is truly the one thing conservatives intend on conserving. Conservatives of both parties.

Bougies and Proles...surely you've heard of them NWP? Even in the throes of end game capitalism the class hierarchy MUST be preserved, and con-served..
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 05:19 PM

Debtor class vs. creditor class is another terminology for it.

Take Blyth for a spin, NWP. It's fairly quick.


Posted by: Greger

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 06:17 PM

Dude right there has nailed the jello to the wall.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 07:30 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I have now caught up to myself in the thread! Woot! I have to admit, friend Hatrack, it has been a challenge to follow all the canards, diversions, and misstatements of fact in your posts, but it has been fun! But, returning to the topic of the thread (I think), what I think you perceive as "conservatism" (other than anti-anything-leftish) no longer exists in common political parlance, but is consigned to the history books (not by Dinesh D'Souza). I would contend it never actually existed, in point of fact.

There are two perceptions/deceptions everyone carries: Self and other. We see ourselves one way, and tell ourselves we are such-and-such (liberal, conservative, rational, etc.), and the outside world sees us as something different. It can be "somewhat" different, or radically different.

Conservatism, as a philosophy, has never really existed. The intellectuals of the "movement" list off the various "forebears" of their viewpoint (it's not, strictly speaking, a philosophy, but a habit of thought), who also, it turns out, are the same forebears of Liberal thought (Mills, Locke, Adams). Interesting, no? They cobble together "principles", but any directed examination of their "standards" reveals them to be ephemera, honored more often in the breach than in the practice.

Like the question of forebears, both Liberals and Conservatives wrap themselves in the mantle of patriotism, champions of liberty, protector of civil rights, etc. Some of us just live those principles better than others. A challenge, today, is to find anyone in political or literary life who actually follows those principles, who lives them. One certainly doesn't find them in the Republican party.

Today, those that try to pass themselves off as "conservatives" are anything but. If one were to put it on a continuum, I suppose it would be radical, liberal, left, right, conservative, reactionary, revanchist. The "Freedom caucus", Federalist Society, and Trumpists have no relationship to "conservatism" other than a thin veneer or patina (any more than Hitler was a Socialist). In the OP, Senator Hatrack opined that conservatives want to "conserve", as the name implies. That impulse does not exist in those groups. They want to tear down, segregate, destroy, reverse, upend. Seriously, name one contemporary "conservative" figure who seeks to preserve anything of note. I'll wait.

What crock of pontificating bullshit! In my OP I stated that what is American Conservatism is. It is also known as classical liberalism. The liberalism of Baron de Montesquieu, John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Algernon Sydney, the English Bill of Rights, Frédéric Bastiat, and our Founding Fathers.

If you want to know and truly understand American Conservatism you might read these books.
Conservatism; An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present
The Conservative Mind; From Burke to Eliot by Russell Kirk
Leftism Revisited by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
The Framing of the Constitution by Max Farrand
Two Treatise on Government by John Locke
Areopagitica by John Milton
James Madison's Notes of the Constitutional Convention
The Spirit of Laws by Baron de Montesquieu
Origins of the Bill of Rights by Leonard W. Levy
The Words We Live By by Linda R. Monk
The Bill of Rights by Akhil Reed Amar
Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville
The Law by Frédéric Bastiat
There are many other books, any about our Founding Fathers and their times, that I could list but it is my hope that you get the idea that American Conservatism is a group that is independent of those groups that you mentioned. Nor is American Conservatism dependent on the leadership of a particular individual which is why I cannot name the conservative figure you requested. American Conservatism wants to conserve the essence of limited government while knowing that a return to the small limited government that our country once had is not possible. It is not because of the size and diversity, of our country today.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 08:07 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Debtor class vs. creditor class is another terminology for it.

Take Blyth for a spin, NWP. It's fairly quick.




This is about "Trumpism" which is not American Conservatism!
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 08:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Class hierarchy is truly the one thing conservatives intend on conserving. Conservatives of both parties.

Bougies and Proles...surely you've heard of them NWP? Even in the throes of end game capitalism the class hierarchy MUST be preserved, and con-served..
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't following the thought process.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 08:42 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


Conservatives have no core values that can't be sacrificed in the name of political expedience or profit: Southern Strategy, Voodoo Economics, and fear mongering.

Hmm


Ya fergot Trickle Down. wink
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 08:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
"My maternal grandparents were forced out of their own businesses by Mussolini's Blackshirts. There was nothing socialist or lefty about it either."


Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

Before Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile created Fascism they were both Socialists. They created Fascism because they saw that the future predicted by Marx in his writings was not happening. To make Socialism advance, as the good socialists that they were, they created Fascism as an updating of the ideas of Marx.
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/fascisms-karl-marx/


Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer

Well, there's your problem right there, friend. Relying on Dinesh D'Souza for anything is like expecting poetry from the white pages. I can't think of a less principled propagandist, except James O'Keefe, or less reliable source for history.


Uhhhhh, Senator Hatrack's messed up post editing skills combined my post and his. And I can't bitch about it because I accidentally butchered one of his when I THOUGHT I was replying instead.

This part BELOW is from the Senator:

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Before Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile created Fascism they were both Socialists. They created Fascism because they saw that the future predicted by Marx in his writings was not happening. To make Socialism advance, as the good socialists that they were, they created Fascism as an updating of the ideas of Marx.
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/fascisms-karl-marx/


The part about my Italian gramps losing his businesses in Rapino at gunpoint while a wealthy landowner from Laquila stood grinning is my post.
The guys with the guns were not socialists. All my gramps ever talked about were "Il Duce and his fascists" and how they turned Italy into an armed camp.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 09:43 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Greger
Class hierarchy is truly the one thing conservatives intend on conserving. Conservatives of both parties.

Bougies and Proles...surely you've heard of them NWP? Even in the throes of end game capitalism the class hierarchy MUST be preserved, and con-served..
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't following the thought process.

THAT IS BULLSHIT!
As a conservative I have NEVER been concerned or even noticed what class a person is supposedly a member of. Separating people into a class is a Marxist idea. An idea that the left of today has now broaden into identity politics. The greatness of capitalism is that a whatever person's financial situation is that it can go up or down. There is no class hierarchy in conservatism. In the 50 plus years that I have been active in conservatism I have NEVER seen anyone put in a class!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/14/19 10:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Greger
Class hierarchy is truly the one thing conservatives intend on conserving. Conservatives of both parties.

Bougies and Proles...surely you've heard of them NWP? Even in the throes of end game capitalism the class hierarchy MUST be preserved, and con-served..
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't following the thought process.

THAT IS BULLSHIT!
As a conservative I have NEVER been concerned or even noticed what class a person is supposedly a member of. Separating people into a class is a Marxist idea. An idea that the left of today has now broaden into identity politics. The greatness of capitalism is that a whatever person's financial situation is that it can go up or down. There is no class hierarchy in conservatism. In the 50 plus years that I have been active in conservatism I have NEVER seen anyone put in a class!


Whaddya mean, the leading light in the White House is all about putting people in classes.
Sorry Hatrack but as Rick said, equality is horizontal.
The Right isn't concerned about anything egalitarian and never has been.

They don't even want everyone to vote!

Posted by: logtroll

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 12:25 AM

Too bad there aren't any Conservatives running for president.

The leadership of the Senate isn't even Conservative. Where are all of the Conservatives??
Posted by: logtroll

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 12:27 AM

King Kon, the conman-in-chief, is the new face of Konservatism.
allhail
Posted by: logtroll

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 12:35 AM

Is this guy a Conservative?

Steve King
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 01:08 AM

Quote:
Whaddya mean, the leading light in the White House is all about putting people in classes.
Sorry Hatrack but as Rick said, equality is horizontal.
The Right isn't concerned about anything egalitarian and never has been.

They don't even want everyone to vote!


Pres. Trump is not what conservatism is. He has done somethings that are conservative but DO NOT confuse nor consider him to be a conservative.

No, conservatism is not egalitarian. Here is the definition of egalitarian.
"Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people."
The inclusion of equal economic rights is why conservatism is not egalitarian. Equal economic rights is to make everyone's economic situation the same. That is socialistic. It is not the job or the responsibility of our government to level the economic playing field. While a lot of Paul Weyrich has done is conservative his desire to not let everyone vote is not. If people do not have the right to vote then we do not have a government that has the consent of the governed. The consent of the governed is one of the key elements of conservatism. It is one of the reasons our American Revolution was fought. The idea of taxation without representation is not a government that has the consent of the governed. It is unfortunate it took solong to extend the franchise to everyone. But our country is and always will be a work in progress.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 01:09 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Is this guy a Conservative?

Steve King

No, he is not!
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 01:17 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Too bad there aren't any Conservatives running for president.

The leadership of the Senate isn't even Conservative. Where are all of the Conservatives??

Unfortunately that is true! Being a Republican is not the same thing as being a conservative. I am a Republican for the lack of a better alternative. That there will be an alternative to the Republican Party is very doubtful considering our "two party" system. The two parties are not the Democrats or the Republicans they are the Challengers and the Incumbents. But whenever a Challenger Party wins they become a member of the Incumbents' Party.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 01:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Pres. Trump is not what conservatism is. He has done somethings that are conservative but DO NOT confuse nor consider him to be a conservative.

Minor problem here... Trump is the new face of Conservatism. You been hijacked, Dude. Now what?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 01:37 AM

FYI: definition of a Regressive

A Regressive is any person who declares to be the complete opposite of a Progressive.

Pretty simple, really...
Posted by: Greger

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 01:41 AM

I think your party has left you behind, Hatrack. Everything about the Republican Party today is geared towards making money for corporations, making the rich richer and making life harder for the poor.

You are the bourgeoisie. You can call it conservatism if you want but every time you guys take over you hand huge scoops of money to the very very wealthy. and funnel more money into the production of tanks and bombs.

Lotta bougies in the Democratic Party too, but we have other threads for that.

Perhaps you feel like this nonsense is sustainable? So what are your goals Senator? What do you want the world to look like in ten years? or a hundred?
Is Trump laying the groundwork for some grand conservative plan to combat global warming and create a thriving conservative global economy?

Apparently you don't like the idea of a social democracy where workers are paid a living wage, have universal healthcare, and subsidized education. What do you envision? All I see is more kids in cages, more shootings and more people dying who can't afford medicine, but hey...you got a conservative solution for all this? let's hear it.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 02:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: pdx rick


Conservatives have no core values that can't be sacrificed in the name of political expedience or profit: Southern Strategy, Voodoo Economics, and fear mongering.

Hmm


Ya fergot Trickle Down. wink

Thanks for the reminder. laugh
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 03:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I think your party has left you behind, Hatrack. Everything about the Republican Party today is geared towards making money for corporations, making the rich richer and making life harder for the poor.

If corporations don't make money they go out of business. The "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is bullshit! Wealth fluctuates. When even a corporation that was once the largest in the world, GM, can go bankrupt shows that wealth fluctuates. It should not have been bailed out.

Lotta bougies in the Democratic Party too, but we have other threads for that.
Quote:
You are the bourgeoisie. You can call it conservatism if you want but every time you guys take over you hand huge scoops of money to the very very wealthy. and funnel more money into the production of tanks and bombs.

No, I am not a member of bourgeoisie. No company of any size should get a subsidy from our government. If you read our Constitution Greger you will see that spending money on tanks and bombs is one of the things it is supposed to do.

Quote:
Perhaps you feel like this nonsense is sustainable? So what are your goals Senator? What do you want the world to look like in ten years? or a hundred?
Is Trump laying the groundwork for some grand conservative plan to combat global warming and create a thriving conservative global economy?{/quote]
What I want the world to like is in ten years is not something I worry about. What it will look like in 100 years I have no control over. There is nothing man can do to combat climate change. The climate has changed before man existed and it will continue to change.

[quote]Apparently you don't like the idea of a social democracy where workers are paid a living wage, have universal healthcare, and subsidized education. What do you envision? All I see is more kids in cages, more shootings and more people dying who can't afford medicine, but hey...you got a conservative solution for all this? let's hear it.

The wage anyone gets can be a livable wage. The reason people don't have a livable wage is because the have developed the habit of living beyond their means. At my last job I was paid $12.50 an hour and I lived quite comfortable. Not only was I able to live quite comfortably but I was able to live without a paycheck for almost a year. To live comfortable it is not how much you make it is how you spend what you make. I was able to that because I did not go into debt, instead I saved my money by living within my means. To have universal healthcare is to have free healthcare for all. To do that would require those in the healthcare industry to work for free. Working for free is definitely not a living wage. Do I have a conservative solution for the problems you claim to exist? Yes, it is to government out of our lives as much as is possible! What you want to see happen requires an ever larger and more intrusive government. Governments do not and cannot generate wealth. What governments do is confiscate wealth. Reduce the size of our government and wealth will be created. THe more wealth that is created the more money there will be available to reduce those problems. Will the problems you listed be solved? No, and even with the "social democracy" you want they will continue to exist. The idea that the problems of the world can be eliminated is utopian thinking. Remember that the word utopia is Latin for nowhere.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 03:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Greger
Class hierarchy is truly the one thing conservatives intend on conserving. Conservatives of both parties.

Bougies and Proles...surely you've heard of them NWP? Even in the throes of end game capitalism the class hierarchy MUST be preserved, and con-served..
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't following the thought process.

THAT IS BULLSHIT!
As a conservative I have NEVER been concerned or even noticed what class a person is supposedly a member of. Separating people into a class is a Marxist idea. An idea that the left of today has now broaden into identity politics. The greatness of capitalism is that a whatever person's financial situation is that it can go up or down. There is no class hierarchy in conservatism. In the 50 plus years that I have been active in conservatism I have NEVER seen anyone put in a class!
Thanks for demonstrating, my friend, all that I said in my last post to you. When I was an active conservative I thought that it meant approaching issues with skepticism, testing ideas, and going forward incrementally with forethought. Those that claim the mantle of conservatism today are none of that (as you have essentially conceded). That you could not name a single person who embodies conservatism modernly seems to prove my point. I very much appreciate the urgent desire to cling to principles and rationality, but it has slipped away from the GOP.

But then I looked back into history and realized that what I thought was conservatism had never truly existed in America. It was a nice fantasy I held, but it was never true. Those that claimed the mantle were ever mean-spirited, narrow-minded, and impractical. The giants of early "American conservatism" (e.g.,Jefferson, Madison) abandoned those so-called principles as soon as they took power, because they learned quickly that they were great in theory, but had no application in the real world. The list of such failures is as long as the list of Presidents.

"Color blindness" and "classless" are just euphemisms for their opposites, elitism and keeping the lower classes and inferior races down and maintaining power. By ignoring the realities of racism and economic exploitation, we can pretend we're pursuing meritocracy, but it's a fraud. At every step of the progress of the Nation it had been conservatives who resisted, demurred and obstructed. That is objective and irrefutable fact. Again, name one instance where this has not been true.

I am very sympathetic to your desire for this not to be true, my friend. I truly am. But it is. (By the way, I've read most of the tomes you listed, but the critique I would provide would be neither on topic nor within the patience of the board. I'm not a novice to the subject.)
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 03:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
"At my last job I was paid $12.50 an hour and I lived quite comfortable. Not only was I able to live quite comfortably but I was able to live without a paycheck for almost a year."


You live alone with no other means of support? Mortgage, rent, car, fuel, groceries, utilities etc?
You should write a how to book on your experience. You would make a fortune off everyone eager to hear 'Conservative (not a Nazi!!!) Hatracks path to economic freedom for the fiscally constrained'.

Millions would love to know your secrets and a few more would probably look under the hood to see your not selling wolf tickets.

Sorry but your being John Stossel grade B.S. I admire your grift though.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 03:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

The wage anyone gets can be a livable wage. The reason people don't have a livable wage is because the have developed the habit of living beyond their means.


--Sigh.

Daryl's health insurance: $450 a month, scheduled to hit $650 next year or close to it.
Bri's health insurance: $200 a month, she is relatively healthy, Daryl is definitely NOT.

Car payment: $850 a month. This is NOT "living beyond our means", it is the ONLY way to carry my wife without lifting her manually in and out of an ordinary car and being forced to use a manual wheelchair, which the docs said is no longer possible.
The old van was beyond repair except for the engine and transmission, which are still quite serviceable but as a reliable vehicle it was finished. The new van, which is fully handicap accessible, cost 80 thousand bucks, forty thousand of which the VA covered, but we're still on the hook for the financing, which works out to 850 a month.

Mortgage: $2600 a month.
Add food, clothing and utilities and that's it.
We don't party, we don't go to expensive dinners, we don't buy stuff online beyond normal necessities, and we don't gamble in Vegas.

Are we "living beyond our means?"

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

At my last job I was paid $12.50 an hour and I lived quite comfortable. Not only was I able to live quite comfortably but I was able to live without a paycheck for almost a year. To live comfortable it is not how much you make it is how you spend what you make. I was able to that because I did not go into debt, instead I saved my money by living within my means.


When was that last job if I may ask?

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack

To have universal healthcare is to have free healthcare for all. To do that would require those in the healthcare industry to work for free. Working for free is definitely not a living wage. Do I have a conservative solution for the problems you claim to exist? Yes, it is to government out of our lives as much as is possible! What you want to see happen requires an ever larger and more intrusive government. Governments do not and cannot generate wealth. What governments do is confiscate wealth. Reduce the size of our government and wealth will be created. THe more wealth that is created the more money there will be available to reduce those problems. Will the problems you listed be solved? No, and even with the "social democracy" you want they will continue to exist. The idea that the problems of the world can be eliminated is utopian thinking. Remember that the word utopia is Latin for nowhere.


Fine, no universal health care.
Do you mind chipping in for funeral and burial for my son?
We won't be able to afford his medical bills anymore.

Here's the most recent one:



By the way, saying UHC requires medical to work for free is NONSENSE.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 04:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
To conserve something is to want to preserve and protect it. American Conservatives want to return our government to doing only what is listed in Article I Section 8 of our Constitution. Anything that is not expressly authorized by it is to be either eliminated or done by the various state or local governments.
Going back to your original post, I am going to posit something that is likely to really, really tick you off: Liberals are the new conservatives. Now, let me explain:

Liberals/progressives want to preserve and protect - the environment, the economy, the civil order, the American dream. "Returning" the government to something it has never been, however, is not "conservative." That, rather, is regressive or reactionary.

Now, to soothe your psyche some, I want to emphasize something we have in common - we want to honor American values, rights, and liberties. American values include fairness, justice, equal opportunity, meritocracy. Rights include expression, religion, press, assembly, association, privacy, keeping and bearing arms... and liberties to make family decisions within the family, freedom from want, from discrimination, from the vicissitudes of life.

As a Liberal I want State governments to have the opportunity to experiment, to innovate, and to deviate from what other States are doing - so long as they don't interfere with those previously stated values. I believe in a government that is big enough to do its job, but not so much that it interferes with the life, liberty, and happiness stuff. Mostly what we disagree on is what those things are, and what is interference.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 04:47 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
[quote=Greger]Class hierarchy is truly the one thing conservatives intend on conserving. Conservatives of both parties.

Bougies and Proles...surely you've heard of them NWP? Even in the throes of end game capitalism the class hierarchy MUST be preserved, and con-served..
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't following the thought process.

THAT IS BULLSHIT!
As a conservative I have NEVER been concerned or even noticed what class a person is supposedly a member of. Separating people into a class is a Marxist idea. An idea that the left of today has now broaden into identity politics. The greatness of capitalism is that a whatever person's financial situation is that it can go up or down. There is no class hierarchy in conservatism. In the 50 plus years that I have been active in conservatism I have NEVER seen anyone put in a class!

Quote:
Thanks for demonstrating, my friend, all that I said in my last post to you. When I was an active conservative I thought that it meant approaching issues with skepticism, testing ideas, and going forward incrementally with forethought. Those that claim the mantle of conservatism today are none of that (as you have essentially conceded). That you could not name a single person who embodies conservatism modernly seems to prove my point. I very much appreciate the urgent desire to cling to principles and rationality, but it has slipped away from the GOP.

I did not claim that there are none who claim the mantle of Conservatism. There are millions of us. Your request was to name one. Since I could not think of anyone who is instantly recognizable I refrained from naming anyone. Nor did I say that the GOP is or ever was a conservative organization. It is a political organization that exists for the sole purpose of winning elections.
Quote:
But then I looked back into history and realized that what I thought was conservatism had never truly existed in America. It was a nice fantasy I held, but it was never true. Those that claimed the mantle were ever mean-spirited, narrow-minded, and impractical. The giants of early "American conservatism" (e.g.,Jefferson, Madison) abandoned those so-called principles as soon as they took power, because they learned quickly that they were great in theory, but had no application in the real world. The list of such failures is as long as the list of Presidents.

In other words when you looked at our Founding Fathers they did not live up to your expectation of living by the ideals they promoted. Guess what? Nobody can or ever will be able to do that. Our Founding Fathers had to deal with life on life's terms so they had to do the best that could. Because they are human beings, not gods, they fell short of living up the ideals they professed. But then it is easy to judge and condemn them for not doing what you thought they should. So stick your condescending arrogant condemnation of them where the sun doesn't shine!
Quote:
"Color blindness" and "classless" are just euphemisms for their opposites, elitism and keeping the lower classes and inferior races down and maintaining power. By ignoring the realities of racism and economic exploitation, we can pretend we're pursuing meritocracy, but it's a fraud. At every step of the progress of the Nation it had been conservatives who resisted, demurred and obstructed. That is objective and irrefutable fact. Again, name one instance where this has not been true.

You are the elitist not the people you are criticizing. Again the people you are judging had to live life on it's terms not in the idealistic way that you wanted them to. While it is true that "conservatives" blocked some of the changes that should have been that you lump all conservatives into one group is bullshit! Yesterday's liberal is tomorrow's conservative. That is human nature. So your fact is not as objective and irrefutable as you think it is.

Quote:
I am very sympathetic to your desire for this not to be true, my friend. I truly am. But it is. (By the way, I've read most of the tomes you listed, but the critique I would provide would be neither on topic nor within the patience of the board. I'm not a novice to the subject.)

No, what you say is not true. It your opinion not facts. That you cannot accept the fact that no one can or ever will live up to the ideals they profess is the basis for your condemnation of our Founding Fathers and your imagined superiority. When you get rid of your insufferable ego then you might make comments that are not condescending and arrogant. But were that to happen you would again be an American Conservative.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 05:12 AM

Friend, you have skipped right over that line by personalizing everything. I am disagreeing with your claims and statements, not calling you names. "condescending arrogant condemnation" indeed. Did you not understand or believe anything I wrote?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 05:28 AM

I am an ardent student of American history, the Constitution, and political philosophy. So, yes, I have very strong opinions. I wish you would take the time to read what I wrote, my friend, and not go off quarter-cocked with suppositions and accusations that are entirely unrelated to what I wrote. I was not criticizing those founders as hypocrites at all - I admire them. What I am saying is that the "conservative ideals" they wanted to believe and apply did not work in the real world, so they adapted, and, for the most part adapted marvelously. Both Jefferson and Madison are outstanding examples of such adaptation. I am not a purist, though I am an idealist.

I would ask that you approach this discussion with some humility rather than hubris.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 12:10 PM

Question for Senator Hatrack...

How does Classical Liberal ideology deal with non-monetized issues such as environmental degradation and social ills?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 09:17 PM

I was seriously hoping for a response Logs. I was geniunely curious of Hatracks response.

Question I have for you though Logs is: What part of environmental degradation isn't monetized?

I have a harder time seeing what isn't than is.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 11:13 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Going back to your original post, I am going to posit something that is likely to really, really tick you off: Liberals are the new conservatives.

No, it doesn't tick me off. Yesterday's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives. The modern day liberals (MDL) want to conserve the programs of the New Deal. Classical liberals want to get rid of them.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
As a Liberal I want State governments to have the opportunity to experiment, to innovate, and to deviate from what other States are doing - so long as they don't interfere with those previously stated values. I believe in a government that is big enough to do its job, but not so much that it interferes with the life, liberty, and happiness stuff. Mostly what we disagree on is what those things are, and what is interference.

As a Classical Liberal you want to bring back federalism.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
James Madison
Posted by: logtroll

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 11:29 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Question I have for you though Logs is: What part of environmental degradation isn't monetized?

My point is that degradation is all too often ignored as a cost of doing business, if the free marketeer can get away with it. It's called "externalization", precisely because the cost is not part of the economic calculation.

The "fixing" (or the repercussions of not fixing) the damage falls to all of society, sometimes all of the earth, which is a massive failure of the "free market" ideology. Which means that the myth of free markets ignores the fact that they are supported by socialism. In my opinion...
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 11:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Equal economic rights is to make everyone's economic situation the same.


Nope, nope and nope. Egalitarianism as applied to economics is not about equal outcomes, it's about equal opportunity.

PS: Equal outcomes is not socialism, it's communism.
There's a difference, even though it is clear you probably don't believe there is.
Posted by: Mellowicious

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/15/19 11:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Yesterday's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives.


Curious - are you saying that liberal philosophy becomes the new conservate position, or that the liberal abandon their philosophy for that of the conservatives?
Posted by: Greger

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/16/19 04:30 AM

Quote:
As a Classical Liberal you want to bring back federalism.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
James Madison


That just isn't what the USA evolved into though. The states didn't evolve into small autonomous nations with a 6 foot 5 big brother who would kick your ass if you f*cked with them. We became one big nation who pledged allegience to a single flag.

I think my social democracy is gonna be way easier than your federalism. And way more popular.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: This is American Conservatism - 08/16/19 04:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Going back to your original post, I am going to posit something that is likely to really, really tick you off: Liberals are the new conservatives.

No, it doesn't tick me off. Yesterday's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives. The modern day liberals (MDL) want to conserve the programs of the New Deal. Classical liberals want to get rid of them.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
As a Liberal I want State governments to have the opportunity to experiment, to innovate, and to deviate from what other States are doing - so long as they don't interfere with those previously stated values. I believe in a government that is big enough to do its job, but not so much that it interferes with the life, liberty, and happiness stuff. Mostly what we disagree on is what those things are, and what is interference.

As a Classical Liberal you want to bring back federalism.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
James Madison
I fully agree that the federal government is one of enumerated powers (and limited thereby), and that States possess what are described as "general police powers". But within those enumerated authorities, the federal government has both superior ( Article VI, cl. 2) and, in many cases, plenary authority. For example, States may not enter into treaties, engage in international warfare, or tax (or even) commerce of and interstate or international character. In my view we have never lost federalism.