Author Topic: Let's have an introspective look at conservatives  (Read 1909 times)

Offline Novanglus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • You can't have your liberty and eat it too.
Let's have an introspective look at conservatives
« on: September 09, 2014, 09:52:47 PM »
In the constitution forum description it says
"anything about the constitution and how liberals ignore it"

Liberals are by far worse than conservatives when it comes to ignoring the constitution. However, I thought it would be worthwhile to take a look at conservative views, and how they measure up to the constitution. Liberals do have one advantage on conservatives when it comes to the constitution - in general liberals flat out don't care what the constitution says, so they are consistent in violating it. (some) Conservatives on the other hand, say they believe in the constitution - and then they pick and chose which parts they want to ignore.

For example,
Conservatives believe in Freedom of speech
As long as you don't burn the American flag (an act which I personally think deserves an ass stomping)

Or

Conservatives will say Obamacare is unconstitutional, because the government can't tell people what to consume.
But drugs are bad (accept alcohol, which is ok), so the government can tell people what they can and can not consume, as far as drugs go.

Any thoughts?



Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: Let's have an introspective look at conservatives
« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2014, 12:47:46 AM »
In the constitution forum description it says
"anything about the constitution and how liberals ignore it"

Liberals are by far worse than conservatives when it comes to ignoring the constitution. However, I thought it would be worthwhile to take a look at conservative views, and how they measure up to the constitution. Liberals do have one advantage on conservatives when it comes to the constitution - in general liberals flat out don't care what the constitution says, so they are consistent in violating it. (some) Conservatives on the other hand, say they believe in the constitution - and then they pick and chose which parts they want to ignore.

For example,
Conservatives believe in Freedom of speech
As long as you don't burn the American flag (an act which I personally think deserves an ass stomping)

Or

Conservatives will say Obamacare is unconstitutional, because the government can't tell people what to consume.
But drugs are bad (accept alcohol, which is ok), so the government can tell people what they can and can not consume, as far as drugs go.

Any thoughts?
I think the subject is hugely complicated and highly resistant to broad characterizations, except in very limited cases.

The "war on drugs," for example, rather than being a conservative hobby-horse, has bi-partisan roots. Consider that the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, the basis yet today for our federal drug laws, was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, but by solidly bi-partisan votes. After it passed by a vote of 341-6 in the House, only 54 Senators bothered to even show up for the vote, and the upper house passed it 54-0. It was signed into law by a reputed Republican (Nixon) who also couldn't see the downside of forming a US Environmental Protection Agency that same year.

Today liberals make squeaky sounds about, for example, the number of times W used 'signing statements' to express his misgivings about the bills he signed into law. The squeaky sounds are a rejoinder to criticisms of the Kenyan's use of the same device. The obvious difference, of course, is the fact that W never promised not to do it, whereas the Kenyan specifically made such a promise. Ditto administration transparency. Ditto the 'revolving door.' As to the real difference between W's use of signing statements and the Kenyan's, the answer lies with the scope and intent of the Kenyan's statements and the actions that tend to follow.

There is a fundamental difference between conservatives and lib/progs, and I think you're picking at the edges of it with this post. Conservatives in general operate with a clear measure of loyalty, fealty, deference, whatever you want to call it, toward our founding principles, and especially toward the Constitution. Lib/progs not only don't care about those principles or the Constitution itself, but instead have a completely different set of principles that aren't even mentioned in the founding documents. Conservatives see what lib/progs do as things bad for the country, sometimes approaching criminality. Lib/progs see what conservatives do as 'sin,' utter evil. Conservatives tend to judge by how closely a law conforms to the Constitution. Lib/progs honestly believe there shouldn't be a Constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Offline Novanglus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • You can't have your liberty and eat it too.
Re: Let's have an introspective look at conservatives
« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2014, 09:55:01 AM »
I think the subject is hugely complicated and highly resistant to broad characterizations, except in very limited cases.

The "war on drugs," for example, rather than being a conservative hobby-horse, has bi-partisan roots. Consider that the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, the basis yet today for our federal drug laws, was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, but by solidly bi-partisan votes. After it passed by a vote of 341-6 in the House, only 54 Senators bothered to even show up for the vote, and the upper house passed it 54-0. It was signed into law by a reputed Republican (Nixon) who also couldn't see the downside of forming a US Environmental Protection Agency that same year.

Today liberals make squeaky sounds about, for example, the number of times W used 'signing statements' to express his misgivings about the bills he signed into law. The squeaky sounds are a rejoinder to criticisms of the Kenyan's use of the same device. The obvious difference, of course, is the fact that W never promised not to do it, whereas the Kenyan specifically made such a promise. Ditto administration transparency. Ditto the 'revolving door.' As to the real difference between W's use of signing statements and the Kenyan's, the answer lies with the scope and intent of the Kenyan's statements and the actions that tend to follow.

There is a fundamental difference between conservatives and lib/progs, and I think you're picking at the edges of it with this post. Conservatives in general operate with a clear measure of loyalty, fealty, deference, whatever you want to call it, toward our founding principles, and especially toward the Constitution. Lib/progs not only don't care about those principles or the Constitution itself, but instead have a completely different set of principles that aren't even mentioned in the founding documents. Conservatives see what lib/progs do as things bad for the country, sometimes approaching criminality. Lib/progs see what conservatives do as 'sin,' utter evil. Conservatives tend to judge by how closely a law conforms to the Constitution. Lib/progs honestly believe there shouldn't be a Constitution.

Great points. As much as I like to argue, I find myself having to agree with you on most; especially the general direction that libs/conservatives come from. However, I would also say that it does not matter which party supported legislation 35 years ago - things change. Today republicans primarily push the drug war, and the Dems are just complicit through inaction.

The question is - Is the drug war constitutional? does the constitution give the federal gov the power to tell people what they can and cannot consume? If the government has that power, what stops them from telling you what you must consume (via Obamacare or any other law)? How do conservatives reconcile the apparent inconsistency? does it make it difficult to argue logically with Liberals?

Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: Let's have an introspective look at conservatives
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2014, 10:46:06 AM »
Great points. As much as I like to argue, I find myself having to agree with you on most; especially the general direction that libs/conservatives come from. However, I would also say that it does not matter which party supported legislation 35 years ago - things change. Today republicans primarily push the drug war, and the Dems are just complicit through inaction.

The question is - Is the drug war constitutional? does the constitution give the federal gov the power to tell people what they can and cannot consume? If the government has that power, what stops them from telling you what you must consume (via Obamacare or any other law)? How do conservatives reconcile the apparent inconsistency? does it make it difficult to argue logically with Liberals?

Before we get to what you say "the question is," perhaps we should examine your statement that "it does not matter which party supported legislation 35 years ago." (Actually, the example I used took place 44 years ago, but I pick nits.) I agree. I also disagree. Along about the time that drug law was being passed, I was buying premium gasoline for 31 cents a gallon. Things change.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct when you say that conservatives today pursue the drug war while liberals do not. The point I made, and with which you did not disagree, was that the original law in 1970 was very much a bipartisan affair with strong support from both camps. What was different then? What happened in those 44 years that resulted in today's political positions?

I think the answer to the second question can be neatly summed up with a quote from Ronald Reagan, which has been paraphrased many times by others: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me." I'll somewhat weaken my own example -- passage of federal drug law in 1970 -- by pointing out that in those days, unlike today, the presence of a Democrat legislator did not automatically equate to the presence of a liberal legislator. I won't waste our time listing Democrats of that era who today would never be considered anything but conservative -- it would be a very long list. Today, however, there are virtually no non-liberal Democrats in Congress. Procedural shenanigans such as those employed to ramrod KenyaCare into being simply could not happen in 1970. But they did happen in 2009, when every Senate Democrat voted for it (!) and not one single Republican in either house of Congress said 'aye.'

As to the first question, the liberals were around in 1970, and they smoked them a lot of wacky-weed. But they didn't yet own the Democrat party lock, stock, and barrel, the way they do today. I laugh when I hear Dems making their squeaky noises about how the Tea Party is "taking over" the GOP. As usual, the liberal pot is calling something else black.

My point is that we have to tread carefully with the terminology. (Consider that the very term 'liberal' was stolen by the Left to replace the horribly tarnished 'progressive' of the Roosevelt/Wilson era, and now that 'liberal' has been similarly fouled, the Left is attempting to resurrect 'progressive' as a replacement to present to generations who can't remember its first incarnation, and who know little of history.) I don't disagree with much of anything you've said about the differences of thought between liberals and conservatives. But in many minds (not necessarily yours), the terms can be confusing. In today's political climate, clearly 'Republican' and 'conservative' are not synonyms, but rather two subsets of politics that overlap to some degree. The same could be said for 'Democrat' and 'liberal,' except that in that case the overlap is almost complete. Thus, the terms 'Democrat' and 'liberal' are today essentially interchangeable, whereas 'Republican' and 'conservative' are not, and have never been. Many arguments of this ilk are presented (especially by liberals, aka Democrats) in the assumption that the latter is not so.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Let's have an introspective look at conservatives
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2014, 11:42:05 AM »
Before we get to what you say "the question is," perhaps we should examine your statement that "it does not matter which party supported legislation 35 years ago." (Actually, the example I used took place 44 years ago, but I pick nits.) I agree. I also disagree. Along about the time that drug law was being passed, I was buying premium gasoline for 31 cents a gallon. Things change.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct when you say that conservatives today pursue the drug war while liberals do not. The point I made, and with which you did not disagree, was that the original law in 1970 was very much a bipartisan affair with strong support from both camps. What was different then? What happened in those 44 years that resulted in today's political positions?


Well there's all the proof ones needs, The correlation between the drug war and the price of gas going up exponentially every year we fought a losing battle.
Hey, it must be true, we have more shark attacks when purchases of ice cream increase at the boardwalk.
Forget the fact that it's hot out and more people buy ice cream and enter the water in the summer, we need to ban ice cream to stop shark attacks and end the war on drugs so we can have cheap gas again..

OK, just being silly in pointing out lib logic as associated with assumed AGW and mans use of carbon based fuel.
One correlation is not cause and effect of another.

Sorry to go off topic, but I was sick all day yesterday, and my mind is working overtime today, but this wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just saw an opening and took it. :biggrin:
#WWG1WGA

Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: Let's have an introspective look at conservatives
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2014, 11:45:17 AM »
Well there's all the proof ones needs, The correlation between the drug war and the price of gas going up exponentially every year we fought a losing battle.
Hey, it must be true, we have more shark attacks when purchases of ice cream increase at the boardwalk.
Forget the fact that it's hot out and more people buy ice cream and enter the water in the summer, we need to ban ice cream to stop shark attacks and end the war on drugs so we can have cheap gas again..

OK, just being silly in pointing out lib logic as associated with assumed AGW and mans use of carbon based fuel.
One correlation is not cause and effect of another.

Sorry to go off topic, but I was sick all day yesterday, and my mind is working overtime today, but this wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just saw an opening and took it. :biggrin:
Did you pour some Milk of Magnesia in your ear?  :tounge:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Let's have an introspective look at conservatives
« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2014, 12:15:18 PM »
Did you pour some Milk of Magnesia in your ear?  :tounge:
Funny you should say that.
I was just diagnosed with vertigo, been spending hours either hugging a trashcan, or stuck in bed.
This really sucks, but I think it's temporary, at least I hope so, because when they hit, there's no warning, I can't even crawl on the floor without falling over.

OK, back to the topic, didn't mean to derail.
#WWG1WGA

Offline Novanglus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • You can't have your liberty and eat it too.
Re: Let's have an introspective look at conservatives
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2014, 12:42:26 PM »
Well there's all the proof ones needs, The correlation between the drug war and the price of gas going up exponentially every year we fought a losing battle.
Hey, it must be true, we have more shark attacks when purchases of ice cream increase at the boardwalk.
Forget the fact that it's hot out and more people buy ice cream and enter the water in the summer, we need to ban ice cream to stop shark attacks and end the war on drugs so we can have cheap gas again..

OK, just being silly in pointing out lib logic as associated with assumed AGW and mans use of carbon based fuel.
One correlation is not cause and effect of another.

Sorry to go off topic, but I was sick all day yesterday, and my mind is working overtime today, but this wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just saw an opening and took it. :biggrin:

In statistics one would phrase it this way:
Correlation does not prove causation.

It's the big problem with all "soft" sciences as I call them; Psychology, Sociology and to a lesser extent Economics.

Offline Novanglus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • You can't have your liberty and eat it too.
Re: Let's have an introspective look at conservatives
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2014, 01:04:59 PM »
Before we get to what you say "the question is," perhaps we should examine your statement that "it does not matter which party supported legislation 35 years ago." (Actually, the example I used took place 44 years ago, but I pick nits.) I agree. I also disagree. Along about the time that drug law was being passed, I was buying premium gasoline for 31 cents a gallon. Things change.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct...

Sorry for the math error, I feel ashamed.

I agree completely. On everything you said. As a Libertarian I have a particular dislike of the term "liberal" - it soils my philosophy. But they stole it long ago - so I deal with it.

Believe it or not, I am aware of the history of both parties and the political spectrum shifts of history. From the Whig party to the Republicans to the southern Democrats; but Honestly, that has no baring on the topic (at least not to you and I, who know the history). We are, where we are - but I will specify:

Generally conservatives (yes conservatives) are the ones pushing the drug war; and most of them are republicans, so my questions stand:

Is the drug war constitutional? does the constitution give the federal gov the power to tell people what they can and cannot consume?
If the government has that power, what stops them from telling you what you must consume (via Obamacare or any other law)?
How do conservatives reconcile the apparent inconsistency?
does it make it difficult to argue logically with Liberals or put another way - if you ignore the constitution on this one issue for the public welfare; does that give Liberals the right to do the same with Obamacare? many Liberals use the very same argument to push for gun control (even some that find themselves in this forum sometimes).


Offline daidalos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4215
  • Gender: Male
  • “Democracy is the most vile form of government.”
Re: Let's have an introspective look at conservatives
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2014, 07:18:03 AM »
Great points. As much as I like to argue, I find myself having to agree with you on most; especially the general direction that libs/conservatives come from. However, I would also say that it does not matter which party supported legislation 35 years ago - things change. Today republicans primarily push the drug war, and the Dems are just complicit through inaction.

The question is - Is the drug war constitutional? does the constitution give the federal gov the power to tell people what they can and cannot consume? If the government has that power, what stops them from telling you what you must consume (via Obamacare or any other law)? How do conservatives reconcile the apparent inconsistency? does it make it difficult to argue logically with Liberals?
Yes the so called "drug war" or "war on drugs" is Constitutional. Why is it? Because it is established by Federal laws which the Congress/President have every Constitutional right to enact as they see fit. So long as those laws do not infringe upon the rights enumerated to the States, or the individual citizen within the Constitution. And so long as the law enacted does not over reach/violate a specific enumeration limiting the powers of the Federal Government. That said, care to show me any part of the Constitution that limits the Congress/President from enacting anti-illicit-drug laws? Care to show us all the section of the Constitution which guarantees the right of the citizen to consume whatever it is they wish too?

IF we don't like a law they have enacted then we have the Constitutional right to vote too replace those who enacted those laws, with someone else we prefer/says will repeal said laws.
One of every five Americans you meet has a mental illness of some sort. Many, many, of our veteran's suffer from mental illness like PTSD now also. Help if ya can. :) http://www.projectsemicolon.org/share-your-story.html
And no you won't find my "story" there. They don't allow science fiction. :)

Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: Let's have an introspective look at conservatives
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2014, 09:56:16 PM »
Yes the so called "drug war" or "war on drugs" is Constitutional. Why is it? Because it is established by Federal laws which the Congress/President have every Constitutional right to enact as they see fit. So long as those laws do not infringe upon the rights enumerated to the States, or the individual citizen within the Constitution. And so long as the law enacted does not over reach/violate a specific enumeration limiting the powers of the Federal Government. That said, care to show me any part of the Constitution that limits the Congress/President from enacting anti-illicit-drug laws? Care to show us all the section of the Constitution which guarantees the right of the citizen to consume whatever it is they wish too?

IF we don't like a law they have enacted then we have the Constitutional right to vote too replace those who enacted those laws, with someone else we prefer/says will repeal said laws.
I love the US Constitution mainly because it's so short. The document is short because it was designed and intended to grant an incredibly limited amount of power to a brand new central government. It was truly all about LIMITING that power.

The history of the Congress and the courts since 1787 is an unending saga of gutting the US Constitution for political reasons, specifically to escape those limits so carefully written, crafted to hamstring most specifically the Executive.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

 

Powered by EzPortal