Would anything be left if left had its way?
It’s disconcerting to hear the liberal left’s point of view in their open contempt for all things American. The latest diatribe by Sandy Levinson against the U.S. Constitution — as presented by Rocky columnist Paul Campos (“An outdated Constitution,” Nov. 6) — is but the latest example.
Apparently, the left will not rest until America has cast off all restraints put in place by the Founding Fathers. Not content with the inroads toward social reconstruction they have so far inflicted on America, they now turn their sights on the Constitution.
Under the guise of “the best American political tradition,” they gleefully ask “whether some of our most basic political arrangements need to be overthrown” (emphasis added). Go ahead, America, they seem to say, pull it all down. Dump 220 years into the dustbin of history.
But what would be left after the dust settles?
Ronald Phillips, Aurora
The Left will not be happy until they have made themselves miserable by inflicting the disaster that is Socialism on the most shining beacon of personal freedom, America. The only way Socialism works is if it is inflicted planet-wide, with no escape. As long as the USA survives, the Utopian Socialist program will fail. Socialists will re-institute slavery, although of an economic sense, but it will be slavery nonetheless. The current mantra of Universal health Care is simply another class warfare tactic to make the producers pay for the lazy. Personal responsibility has gone the way of the Do-Do bird. The "me-me-me" generation has taken over, and has not yet realized that when the producers are gone, the "me-me-me"s have nobody to fleece. I'm glad that I'm getting up in years and will not see the consequences of this selfishness. I truly pity the next generations to come, for they shall be slaves.
Posted by on November 13, 2007 01:23 AM01:23, actually you have it the wrong way around, but what the heck, it makes you happy so who am I to point out that the left encourages human emmancipation and the right encourages only tradition.
This letter writer like all other cons have been living in a cave the last 7 years. Have they not looked at the patriot act, wire tapping and all the other constitutional rights this administration has trampled all over on. Oh I'm sorry now I don't love my country and I want the terroist to win. I said something bad about Bush. Where's Keith.
Posted by on November 13, 2007 05:58 AMI wonder if shouting down conservative speakers when they are invited to colleges is considered "human emancipation".
I wonder if deficating on a US flag in full view of children is "human emancipation".
And they think they are "educated". A four year degree in some psudoscience does not prove intellegence in my opinion.
But who am I to tell some 20 year old anarchist or some 60 year old hippie trying to relive the 1960s that they don't know everything?
Liberalism encourages emmancipation or, more accurately, human liberty.
Leftism encourages the expansion of the authority of government to take your money, keeps a bit for itself and gives what's left to someone else who is more deserving.
Leftism encourages the expansion of government authority into the schools to enusre that the young will be educated in the way of secular humanism to the exclusion of all else.
Leftism ecnourages the expansion of government into administering health care and when the system becomes inoperable, makes itslef the sole agent of reform. This creates an ever-larger population of citizens requiring the favor of the political class for ordinary needs.
Leftism is all about high taxes, increased regulation and use of government authority regulating ever aspect of civil life except, of course, the use of the military in the nation's defence.
There is very little Liberalism on the Left today.
Posted by James Jones on November 13, 2007 06:57 AMYou only need ask one question. Are you willing to allow the enaction of laws that remove your freedom of choice promoted by legislators who think they know better than you how you should live your life?
If your answer is no, then you had best defend the freedom of choice and Liberty and Justice of others right damned now without hesitation , if you don't want to become the next victim of the over zealous control fanatics, funded by huge corporations special interests, to destroy your freedom of choice and Liberty and Justice.
If you expect these power and control idiots to stop short of your interests, you are delusional and stupid. They are on a mission that is out of control and will not stop short of eliminating all our rights unless you fight tooth and nail to stop them. We will only have ourselves to blame if we wind up living in the Big Brother world we were warned about in George Orwell's novel, 1984. He may of got the year wrong, but the evidence is abundantly clear in the here and now, he was right about it happening.
Posted by Allen Campbell on November 13, 2007 07:10 AM"wonder if deficating on a US flag in full view of children is "human emancipation".
Good point, Jimminy. But I wonder if being serial killer is "human emancipation". And I wonder if being a serial rapist is. Or even a person who kills dogs and eats them.
Of course, neither what you said or I said has a damn thing to do with the subject but it does feel good to say those things, doesn't it?
But to answer your question. No, it is not "human emancipation". You need to think of doing something else.
Posted by Truth on November 13, 2007 07:17 AMLeftism? I've never heard that term. Is there something called Rightism?
Posted by Curious on November 13, 2007 07:35 AMUPWARDLY MOBILE AMERICANS:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010855
The liberal "income inequality/class warfare" argument is not supported by the facts presented in the Treasury study. And raising taxes on the risk-takers who create jobs and incomes is downright stupid. Read it an weep, socialists.
Posted by Hank on November 13, 2007 08:03 AMtruthy asked:
"I wonder if deficating on a US flag in full view of children is "human emancipation"."
No, truthy, it's called "human defecation".
Posted by Charles B on November 13, 2007 08:48 AMwhile there are good agruments against all of the progressive socialist liberal ideas out there, there are so many of them that only want what is being promised, and may I add that the dems promise a lot and never deliver, that is all they can see is the 'rich' having to pay for their needs.
in any point it is worthless to even try and have a rational conversiation with all of these progressive liberal sociopaths as they only see their view as being the correct one and facts will never enter into their heads.
Charles B,
Don't quit your day job.
Posted by truthy on November 13, 2007 08:57 AMThat's the usual bull*&^$ screed from the Hankser. He's up to his usual, talking parrot self.
Posted by Keith and Hank sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G on November 13, 2007 08:57 AMSpot on Allen Campbell!!
Posted by A on November 13, 2007 08:59 AMthe constitution gives dumb people the ability and freedom to say dumb things. it protects the 'rights' of dumb people making negative comments about the very thing that gives them the ability to do so. i guess there are a lot of dumb people out there who don't know their freedom comes from the constitution.
Posted by ktr on November 13, 2007 09:00 AMCNN's Wolf Blitzer warned by Clinton crowd: "NO TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR HILLARY."
Check it out on Drudge, the Clintonistas can't stand to see their onion peeled while on TV. This is just more evidence that even her handlers (now working overtime) know that Hillary's just an empty pants suit with a big kackle (the kackle you get when you mention her planned tax hikes) and the right last name.
Softballs only, Mr. Blitzer, Hillary can't afford to let the voters find out for what she really stands.
Posted by Hank on November 13, 2007 09:05 AM
Blacks and women should NEVER be considered citizens. They'll ruin our white America.
Those damn liberals are for their rights. DAMN THEM TO HELL!
Posted by rick on November 13, 2007 09:16 AMThe RMN letters to the editor post has become a cesspool of useless blather punctuated by unoriginal and boring rants by the same cast over and over. Better stimulation and entertainment can be found watching lichen grow - at least the lichen are making progress.
Posted by a crock on November 13, 2007 09:18 AMThose homos should be jailed. There is nothing in the constitutuion to prevent this. Praise W./Jesus!
Posted by Right Wing Nut on November 13, 2007 09:20 AMCheck it out on Drudge
posted by Hank
Ha ha, you have to be kidding? What kind of a tool checks things out on Drudge? Hank has to be a total moron.
Posted by on November 13, 2007 09:22 AM"FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST ...THANK GOD ALMIGHTY....."
Rupert Murdoch just announced that he plans to dump the web subscription fee for its 1 million WSJ subscribers; ad revenues will make up the difference.
Finally...free market capitalism for free. There will soon be millions more folks reading Murdochs WSJ. The word is getting out!
Competition...choice...gotta love it!
Posted by Hank on November 13, 2007 09:39 AMI find it absolutely hysterical that the far right keeps talking about the "left's" tendencies to grow gov't, take away civil liberties and personal freedoms, raise taxes, refuse to represent the majority of americans, etc, etc, etc....when we have seen nothing but these practices from the Republicans for more than 7 years now.
Posted by jay on November 13, 2007 09:40 AMBangalore Skank
"01:23, actually you have it the wrong way around, but what the heck, it makes you happy so who am I to point out that the left encourages human emancipation and the right encourages only tradition"
Human emancipation, means emancipating them from personal responsibility, someone or something else is always to blame for everything. Emancipating them from taking financial responsibility, the rich have all of the money, so they can just take care of us. Emancipating them from government involvement, the government will take care of us, because they know what it best for us.
The Far left's definition of "Emancipation" sounds more like slavery to me.
I believe this country was built on those "traditions".
Posted by on November 13, 2007 09:58 AMLetter writer Ronald is right!! The one issue that shows that the Democrats mean us great harm is the fact they are trying to destroy the Second Amendment.The reason the Democrats want us disarmed is the same reason tyrants throughout history disarmed the people.The Democrats are even going to try to take away our Freedom of Speech on talk radio using the so called Fariness Doctrine.The reason is because the Democrats can't control the information on talk radio the way they do in the mainstream media.The NRA is fighting for the Second Amendment and Freedom of Speech on talk radio.Join today 1-877-NRA-2000.
Posted by An American on November 13, 2007 10:03 AMLet's hope that Rupert Murdoch somehow gets his hands on Hillary's secret White House papers and plasters them all over the WSJ web site--the soon to be new, expanded and free WSJ web site. Good material for the Cavuto FBN-TV show too.
That would complete the peeling of the Clinton onion that reveals the empty pant's suit. And there is nothing that Hillary's handlers could do about it. Go Rupert!
KACHLE...KACKLE...KACKLE!
Posted by Hank on November 13, 2007 10:05 AMAA....what bills are before this Congress that would give the gov't the ability to abolish the 2nd amendment?
I'm a lifelong shooter....and I am unaware of any attempt by either party to "destroy the 2nd amendment".
Posted by jay on November 13, 2007 10:12 AMjay - "I am unaware" pretty much fits you to a tee.
Posted by KW on November 13, 2007 10:21 AMThe Bush administration went to court and defended the Second Amendment as an individual right.The Clinton administration went to court and said the Second Amendment was not an individual right to own firearms.If Bush wanted to destroy the Constitution would he want all the citizens to be armed?The Founding Fathers would say the one that wants to disarm the people is the one that is trying to destroy the Constitution!!! The Democrats!!
Posted by An American on November 13, 2007 10:21 AMThere are many similarities to the extremism of the political spectrum. It is not just the far left, but the far right that we must stand up to.
The Christian Conservatives are just as bad as the Liberal Left, in taking away our personal freedoms. Both sides want it "their way or no way" and both sides have the attitude of "we know better for you than you do."
Regardless of your political tilt, the extremism of the cult of beliefs is what we should fear more than one partisan over another. Extremism, from the right or the left is far more dangerous because it creates barriers of "us vs. them" on every political topic.
I personally do not think there is anything wrong with concern and compassion for our fellow human beings. But don't compel me to care for someone that doesn't care for themselves. Don't compel me to pay for the poor habits and choices of others. Don't compel me to disprove a negative because that is "consensus." Don't mandate federal programs without adequate federal dollars to back it up (NCLB, SCHIP, UHC, AGW) and that are not in the scope of power and responsibility of the federal government in the first place. And don't tell me that you are going to "do something," but HOW you are going to do it, WHY it is needed and HOW it will be paid for.
This constant bickering of "you did it, so I did it, but you did it worse..." is just an excuse to point fingers away from personal responsibility. ENOUGH! Maybe if we didn't treat the underprivileged like children they wouldn't continue to be dependent like children? Social welfare has been a living experiment since at LEAST the Johnson administration and really FDR. Has the gap between rich and poor shrunk at all? Are there more people dependent on the Government now, then there was then?
Social welfare has failed. It is time to scrap that experiment and start DEMANDING personal responsibility. We have the evidence right in front of us. We just need to have the guts to change. This is not a "conservative philosophy" by any means, but a true "liberal philosophy" at it's core. The status quo is not working. Creating more of it is not a solution, but is the same as placing a bigger bandage on gun shot wound to the head!
Posted by Dan2 on November 13, 2007 10:24 AMBangalore Skank --
Sent to me by my cousin in Britain...
Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then traveling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a
Japanese TV.
And the most British thing of all? Suspicion of all things foreign!
Only in Britain can a pizza get to your house faster than an ambulance.
Only in Britain do supermarkets make sick people walk all the way to the back of the shop to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front.
Only in Britain do people order double cheeseburgers, large fries and a DIET coke.
Only in Britain do banks leave both doors open and chain the pens to the counters.
Only in Britain do we leave cars worth thousands of pounds on the drive and lock our junk and cheap lawn mower in the garage.
Only in Britain do we use answering machines to screen calls and then have call waiting so we won ' t miss a call from someone we didn' t want to talk to in the first place.
Only in Britain are there disabled parking places in front of a skating rink.
NOT TO MENTION..
3 Brits die each year testing if a 9v battery works on their tongue.
142 Brits were injured in 1999 by not removing all pins from new shirts.
58 Brits are injured each year by using sharp knives instead of screwdrivers.
31 Brits have died since 1996 by watering their Christmas tree while the fairy lights were plugged in.
19 Brits have died in the last 3 years believing that Christmas decorations were chocolate.
British Hospitals reported 4 broken arms last year after Xmas cracker-pulling accidents.
18 Brits had serious burns in 2000 trying on a new jumper with a lit cigarette in their mouth.
A massive 543 Brits were admitted to A&E in the last two years after trying to open bottles of beer with their teeth...
5 Brits were injured last year in accidents involving out-of-control Scalextric cars.
And finally...
In 2000 eight Brits were admitted to hospital with fractured skulls incurred whilst throwing up into the toilet.
If you ' re proud to be British, send this on!
AA I guess I was looking for some current links to define this "assault" on the 2nd amendment...until then...it's just propaganda.
Posted by jay on November 13, 2007 10:32 AM"There is very little Liberalism on the Left today."
Very true. The Democratic Party has been taken over by more radical "progressives." True Liberals are few and far between. Now the "progressives" evade open discourse in favor of shouting down or protesting against opposing views, and lean toward censorship and control over people that even fascists wince at.
As a conservative, I long for solid Liberal ideas to evaluate and use to temper programs of the right for the benefit of this country.
Posted by on November 13, 2007 10:32 AMJay what guns do you shoot?Where do you shoot?How often do you shoot?What ammo do you use?We have something in common here I would like to talk to you about this issue.
Posted by An American on November 13, 2007 10:35 AM"That's the usual bull*&^$ screed from the Hankser. He's up to his usual, talking parrot self."
Posted by Keith and Hank sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G
Real mature response from the left -- including the self chosen moniker. Perhaps more could be accomplished with a little maturity and less child like name calling.
Posted by on November 13, 2007 10:37 AMHey An American, yesterday I posted a comment (something along the lines that Cheney is a total idiot) about the ban on plastic guns and armour piercing ammo that only Cheney and 2 other Congresspersons oppossed. You made a statement along the lines that the ban would keep you from getting hunting ammo and that the guns only had plastic parts? Not at all what I recall. The sole purpose of plastic guns was to avoid detection. The armor piercing bullets were commonly referred to as "cop killers". What I want to ask you is since the ban was overwhelmingly passed, how has this effected you? I support our right to buy hand guns for protection and rifles/shotguns for hunting but other than that I think it is folly to oppose any regulations for firearms. It's not like you need a bazooka or a rocket launcher.
Posted by just sayin' on November 13, 2007 11:01 AMI shoot everything from skeet with my ruger red label to steel plates with my Wilson CQB....and have hunted since I was big enough to hold a single shot .22.
I have to say...I realliy don't feel that our 2nd amendment rights are being threatened by either party. I think it's pretty clear that neither want to weather the political damage that would come from restricting our rights to bear arms....and any suggestion otherwise is just useless political fearmongering intended to galvanize a certain political base needlessly against a particular party.
Posted by jay on November 13, 2007 11:05 AMHILLARY BECOMES BIGGEST IOWA FARMER:
More PLANTS in her audience than there are on any other farm in all of Iowa.
Her handlers know that Hillary can't afford to let the voters know for which she really believes....this onion and empty pants suit is getting peeled faster than Bill could unzip his fly!
"OK, Mr. Blitzer--softballs only for Hillary. Don't you dare pull a Russert on us--or else! The dems idea of a "debate" is similiar to Saddam Hussein's idea of questioning."
Its all started with Hillary's flubbed "drivers licenses for illegals" question and its been a rapidly worsening trainwreck ever since.
Posted by Hank on November 13, 2007 11:11 AMOn the second amendment issue, I think that we eventually will need to address in a definitive moment what "shall not be infringed" actually means, but I would tend to agree with Jay on this one. If we get to the point where registering fire-arms is a Federal law, or further, how many firearms one can own (collect shoot, what have you), then I think we will need to open our eyes a little more. But, this issue is nothing more than political rhetoric in my eyes.
Posted by Dan2 on November 13, 2007 11:58 AMYou can defend the Constitution today, or defend your freedom and your life soon.
The 2nd Amendment is the 1 that guarantees the rest.
Dan2,
This the typical progressive stance, once it happens then we should think about it. Reactive response. We need to confront this issue "before" it becomes a Federal law not afterwards. That is called "Proactive"
This country needs to be acting "proactively" instead of this "reactive" garbage. Once something becomes a law it is much harder to correct the problem. This is why gun owners fight every action taken by the government to limit their rights, they understand the attempt to take away their 2nd amendment rights piece by piece.
Posted by jgd777 on November 13, 2007 12:35 PM
jay, I had read somewhere that instead of taking away the right to own guns, some fool in power was gonna try to outlaw ammo instead
Posted by RP on November 13, 2007 12:38 PMIt is so much fun to read how wigged out the Righties are about this vast left-wing conspiracy to deprive them of their rights but they defend torture and wiretapping and expensive invasions. Then there is that inconvenient fact three taxpayers were denied entrance to a taxpayer funded event because of a bumper sticker on their car. And what exactly is the evidence that gun control laws are about to be enacted? None none and none.
The bottom line in this post is the same old boring retread of fear that "we good ole boy Americans are going to have to start sipping latte's." The smell from the laundry room of these pant-crapping conservatives must be overwhelming. The cons have morphed FDR's comment "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" into "Fear everything". What moral weaklings. The country has survived seven years of Bush incompetence. It will survive if God forbid a liberal gets elected. Power sharing is the essence of a functioning Democracy.
Posted by Wes on November 13, 2007 01:14 PMWith all this talk about protecting the US Constitution it is fair to point out that of all the presidential candidates Dennis Kucinich is the only one with a current Resolution in the US Congress to protect the Constitution and the separation of powers from VP Cheney. It is his bill H Res 799 to Impeach Cheney. He successfully defended it from being killed last Tuesday thanks to GOP help. Colorado's Democratic Congressmen/women want the bill buried in the Judiciary committee. You can't even get DeGette who has the safest seat of the bunch to talk about it. If you think Bush and Cheney should be Impeached and want to do something about it SEE OUR WEBSITE http://ImpeachCO.com
The Colorado Impeach Coalition has done over 70 impeach events since January. JOIN US
Does anyone here know who Edward R. Murrow was?
Here are some of his best quotes -- and they sound as timely today as ever:
"If we confuse dissent with disloyalty — if we deny the right of the individual to be wrong, unpopular, eccentric or unorthodox — if we deny the essence of racial equality, then hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa who are shopping about for a new allegiance will conclude that we are concerned to defend a myth and our present privileged status.
Every act that denies or limits the freedom of the individual in this country costs us the. . . confidence of men and women who aspire to that freedom and independence of which we speak and for which our ancestors fought." – Ford Fiftieth Anniversary Show, CBS and NBC, June 1953, "Conclusion." Murrow: His Life and Times, A.M. Sperber, Freundlich Books, 1986
"We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are: The defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility." - From the March 9, 1954, "See It Now" television broadcast on Senator Joe McCarthy.
And finally, my favorite:
"A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves."
Posted by Pragmatist on November 13, 2007 02:17 PMjdg777,
I would agree with you, to a point. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide what is Constitutional and what is not. I think (well, I hope) that they take Parker v. District of Columbia and clarify this issue once and for all.
While we, as the electorate, should be proactive in whom we elect to represent us, I don't know how functional the "leadership" would be, if not reactive to the changing climate of politics. Now, by no means do I think we should govern by whim (or poll for that matter), as leadership means to lead, not follow. To represent the will of the people, should also imply communication with the people, which we just don't have any more, so an INFORMED electorate can make proactive decisions, not just on what the media portrays as news.
Does that make sense?
If you would like my personal opinion on specifically the 2nd Amendment, knowing the language of the time, the manner of communication and the very DIRECT language used, the key phrase is the "right of the people" not "a well regulated militia." In historical context (and I have written on this before and did a thesis on the Second Amendment) the "militia" was literally any able bodied male, over the age of 14 that was called on to fight under the leadership ("well regulated") of a "regular Army" officer. In the Revolutionary War, the militia was usually lead by someone at the rank of Colonel or Captain. Generals lead "regular army" into battle.
Based on that knowledge and understanding of history, the States do not have the right to infringe upon the peoples right to keep and to bear arms (nor do the Feds for that matter). Like all of our rights guaranteed in the Constitution, they are not absolute, so restrictions may be placed, but it is a basic right of the people to keep and bear arms. Anything less would need to be proposed in an Amendment to the Constitution to repeal parts or in whole the Second Amendment.
Any other Constitutional scholars wish to weigh in?
Posted by Dan2 on November 13, 2007 03:13 PMBut........wait! IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!
Posted by HunterDan on November 13, 2007 04:15 PMDan 2,
Well explained, thank you!
There was a mention in a previous post regarding the outlawing of ammunition, could this be done without affecting the rights granted under the 2nd Amendment? The reason I ask is you seem to have some knowledge of the Constitution.
Have you done any research into the 14th Amendment? I have some questions that possibly you could help me answer.
Posted by jgd777 on November 13, 2007 05:32 PM"The 2nd Amendment is the 1 that guarantees the rest."
You keep believing that, if it helps you sleep at night. If they really, REALLY want to take your rights away, they're going to do it.
If you decide you want to resist, it doesn't matter how many pistols, rifles, shotguns, or other weapons you have. The government has tanks, and missiles, and fighter/bombers, and all kinds of other neat hardware that would annihilate you without anyone having to break a sweat.
Posted by on November 13, 2007 05:36 PM A.A and all tunnel-vision 2nd amendment supporters.
The right to bear arms has no limits written in there.
Tim McVeigh used his military training to slaughter 164 Americans with his choice of "Ryder" armament because he hated Clinton.
Next time it will be a nuke .
Is that REALLY what you're advocating?
Because if so, I really really need a nuke to protect my family.
I'm sure the NRA would help me find one.
Hey, 10:25 AM, where were you last week when people were gloating over a British court allegedly having found nine inaccuracies among Al Gore's global warming contentions?
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on November 13, 2007 06:42 PMjay 11:05 -
You are unaware which party is anti gun?
You don't get out much do you?
Dems have been the party behind virtually every attack on the second amendment.
This just from last spring.
http://www.gunowners.org/a032207.htm
It never used to be that way either.
http://tenring.blogspot.com/2005/03/why-are-democrats-against-right-to.html
Truthy said ”I wonder if shouting down conservative speakers when they are invited to colleges is considered "human emancipation".”
No, it’s called “bad manners”, and is poor form and something to be seen as a failure.
”I wonder if deficating on a US flag in full view of children is "human emancipation".
No, it’s called “public indecency” and gets you a citation and a day in court regardless of what is being crapped upon.
However, the flag part is irrelevant but instructive. Conservatives tend to get confused between the message and the medium. The flag is just a piece of material, you can do what you want with it. What it symbolizes is important and somewhat elevated but destroying the flag doesn’t affect the thing it symbolizes.
It is a common Conservative error to turn a symbol into an idol and start to respect the symbol as a thing in and of itself, and to forget that the symbol is valueless.
Freeing people from that mistake is very much emancipatory.
The function of the Conservative is to protect tradition, and the function of the liberal is to tear down tradition to make way for the new.
Too much Conservatism and you get ossification of the culture and retention of obsolete or obstructive idols and petrified symbols, too much liberalism and you get chaos and loss of valuable traditions.
My view is that when you mistake a flag for something of value in and of itself, you have too much Conservatism at work.
James tried with ”Leftism encourages the expansion of the authority of government to take your money, keeps a bit for itself and gives what's left to someone else who is more deserving.”
Actually that would be Conservatism at work.
Like all humans, leftists and liberals are prone to become conservative about some things, and many “fellow travelers” are really just conservatives who didn’t like a particular status quo, but are eager to put into place a new one. So as soon as the liberal tears down a traditional structure, these travelers start cementing the resulting process and turning it into tradition. That’s when leftists create creeping government – it’s the conservatives in their movement trying to establish controlling traditions.
”There is very little Liberalism on the Left today”
There never were many, and never will be either because liberalism is a rare character trait.
People generally don’t like change, and tend conservative when they are fearful.
However, the US is particularly short of home-grown liberals, you import most of them.
Part of this is due to the use of fear, uncertainty, and doubt as ways to control behaviour in the US.
You vote for people and buy stuff based on how well they push your fear buttons, not because they will do good things for you.
Even the sales of beneficial things are generally peddled in terms of fear in the US.
Fear and doubt drive conservatism in behaviour.
10:25, is there some reason that you are addressing this funny but untrue posting about British life to me?
I am not a Pom, and although I find the items funny, none are particularly true.
Do you really think people die of putting their tongues across a 9v battery?
Skank
I see. So it is the conservative's agenda to increase the scope of government and increase tax rates to fund entitlement programs.
It all become so clear when the explanation is finally handed down from the summit of Mount Widsom.
Posted by James Jones on November 13, 2007 10:23 PMJames said ” So it is the conservative's agenda to increase the scope of government and increase tax rates to fund entitlement programs”
Wrong conjunction.
It is a conservative agenda to increase the scope of government, but not to fund entitlement programs. Conservatives want more funding for churches and faith-based initiatives (as they are quaintly termed), for more laws concerning anything they consider immoral, and for more government control over anything to do with anything they think is sinful.
Look at the reaction to anything to do with sex, for example. A wardrobe malfunction elicits a whole flotilla of new laws and penalties, a constitutional amendment is needed to ward off gays, we need special laws and programs to prevent contraceptives getting into the hands of teenagers, and we need funding for faith-based “abstinence-only” programs.
That is government expansion.
For Pragmatist - here are a couple of quotes by Republicans which we all ought to keep in mind:
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” — Theodore Roosevelt.
"As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur"
- Senator Robert A. Taft, December 19, 1941 (12 days post-Pearl Harbor Attack)
For those of you who are concerned about the Constitution - if this doesn't scare you, nothing will:
In 2005 (after Mr. Bush had TWICE sworn to protect & defend the Constitution), GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
Kind of makes you wonder which party is more likely to take away your Constitutionally guaranteed rights & freedoms.
Posted by Mary on November 14, 2007 05:55 AMSkank,
Right you are. History will look back on on today's culture and dub it the New Victorian Age.
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 08:14 AMEither that or the Age of Victoria's Secret.
Who says leftists are out of touch with reality?
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 08:17 AMI would rather be wrapped in the Constitution and burning the flag than be wrapped in the flag and burning the Constitution.
Right-wing neo-conservatives are ruining this country by revoking the right to due process and Habeus Corpus.
To those who support warrantless wiretaps, waterboarding (torture), and other affronts to American decency: I sincerely hope that you get the opportunity to taste this "new type of justice" for yourselves.
Posted by Tree Hugger on November 14, 2007 08:42 AMMy, my! Such anger for a "peace loving' Tree Hugger. You sould save some of that for your next Indymedia inspired anti-facist event.
You will need your righteous anger for energy to run from the tear gas.
Posted by truthy on November 14, 2007 08:59 AMPoor Rev. Jones seems to be under the impression that all those people buying at Victoria's Secret are liberals. I wonder if he thinks that Madison Ave. and the executive boards of the companies who provide us with such luxuries and make the wealthy think that is the way to happiness and God are peopled with only liberals. It's a feel good way to see the world. It's also a ridiculously false way to see it. Talk about being out of touch with reality!! There is a great tendency among people with Jones' egomania to think that the devil is out there in those who think differently from him. If the Pharisee and the Publican were put into a play, Jones would be perfect for the Pharisee.
Posted by Truth on November 14, 2007 09:09 AMTree Hugger:
"Right-wing neo-conservatives are ruining this country by revoking the right to due process and Habeus Corpus."
Can you provide an example of any citizen who has had these rights revoked?
Posted by KW on November 14, 2007 09:55 AM"So it is the conservative's agenda to increase the scope of government and increase tax rates"
Ding Ding Ding....what have we got for him Johnny.
yes James...last 7 years are exhibit A.
Posted by jay on November 14, 2007 09:59 AMjay,
When you quoted me you chopped
to fund entitlement programs.
Now why is that? You are a leftist integrity who would never misrepresent the truth to makea point - right?
If you don''t want to answer that one then, what tax rate increases have we had in the past 7 years that you are referring to?
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 10:07 AMSo you'd rather raise taxes to fund unsuccessful nation building in order to pad the profits of corporate friends of the administration than taking care of folks at home, James?
Posted by jay on November 14, 2007 10:43 AMNice question dodge jay.
Now are you scripted? Or do you make things up as you go along?
Posted by KW on November 14, 2007 10:56 AMAhhh...I forgot....KW, James and John II are still living in lollipop junction where the fuzzy math tells them that the irresponsible fiscal and foreign policies of the last 7 years won't result in inevitable tax raises.
rrriiiggghhhttt...
Posted by jay on November 14, 2007 11:01 AMInevitible???
Only if your idol Hillary gets her way.
Posted by KW on November 14, 2007 11:12 AMThere you go, KW....thanks for proving my point. Tell the lollipop guild hi for me.
Posted by jay on November 14, 2007 11:29 AMjay,
You deconstruct my posts so you can lie about my point and make some idiotic point. When I ask you to list the taxes you refer to you change the subject to the purpose of taxation.
You have the integrity of a slug. Your posts are the slimey trail of a pitch-perfect leftist.
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 11:36 AMFirst Jay if you want proof that the Democrats are anti-gun.Here I go.The Brady Campaign is an anti-gun organization.They do not believe the Second Amendment is a right of the individual to own guns.Here are the Democrats that recieved an "A" from their group.Bill Clinton he was also endorsed by them,Al Gore,John Kerry and every Democrat in the leadership I can think of.The NRA is a group that believes that the Second Amendment is an individual right of the citizen to own firearms.Here are the Democrats that recieved an "F" from this group.Bill Clinton,John Kerry,Al Gore,Barbara Boxer,Dianne Feinstein,Richard Durbin,Dennis Kucinich and most of the Democrat leadership.These groups hve tracked the voting records of these politicians for decades so they know where they stand on our gun rights.Any question Jay?If you need to know what "A" and "F" stand for let me know.
Posted by An American on November 14, 2007 11:56 AMI forgot Bush and Chaney received an "A" from the NRA.I am quite sure that they received an "F" from the Brady Campaign.Any questions Jay?
Posted by An American on November 14, 2007 12:04 PMDan2,we do not need the Supreme Court to tell us what the Second Amendment means.All you have to do is study the history of the Amendment and it is clear.It is a Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms and it Shall Not be Infringed.The Supreme Court is just people like you and me.If 5 rule one way or the other it does not make it a fact.Dan read the history of what the Founding Fathers meant at the time the Constitution was signed.The Collective Right Theory that is being used to take away the Second Amendment was not even heard of until the 20 Centutry.It was invented by groups and people that wanted to destroy the Second Amendment.
Posted by An American on November 14, 2007 12:26 PMAn American is a Republican rightwing coward. A rightwing chickenhawk who talks tuff but is afraid to join the military and fight for this country. The man is a chickenshit traitorious coward content to play in his basement with his guns but cowers at the thought of enlisting to fight our enemies. he hides behind the 2nd amendment and is too stupid to understand the rest of the Constitution. He is less than the spittle from the mouth of a rotting animal. The man 'aspires' to be as smart as Keith one day.
Posted by htieK on November 14, 2007 12:51 PMJust sayin,I am glad to answer your questions.First the "cop killer" bullet.The media and the Democrats were talking about this issue to confuse the public.There was one type of bullet the teflon coated bullet the NRA supported a ban on.The Democrats and the media were trying to include ANY bullet that would go through a policeman's vest.This would include ALL hunting ammo used for big game.The NRA defeated this and just supported the banning of teflon bullets.If Chaney voted against this bill it shows that he is a man of great principle because he knew that the Democrats would be back for the hunting ammo.Just a few years ago Ted Kennedy proposed such a ban.Just sayin you care about the safety of the police,don't you?Then you should be for the banning of ALL hunting ammo that will go through a police officers vest.The plastic gun issue,Just Sayin name one plastic gun that was banned when the bill went through to ban them.There were none.Once again the media and the Democrats were trying to fool the public into banning guns that had plastic but also had metal parts like the Glock.So what the NRA did was back a bill that would ban a plastic gun if anyone ever made one.Once again if Chaney did not vote for this bill it shows he is a man of great principle by not voting for a bill where there was no problem.Just Sayin if you have anymore questions about the gun issue feel free to ask me.You could be pro- gun but just ill informed!!!!
Posted by An American on November 14, 2007 01:05 PMHtiek,is a great example of a Democrat.Do you want these people running your government?
Posted by An American on November 14, 2007 01:19 PMKW asked, "Can you provide an example of any citizen who has had these rights revoked?"
The answer to your question is very simple: ALL OF US!
Just read ANY of these search results:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=patriot+act+civil+rights
Please stop defending tyranny and the Bush administration's methodical elimination of our inalienable Constitutional rights.
Posted by Tree Hugger on November 14, 2007 01:22 PMDo you really want rightwing nuts like An American running this country? Focused on one thing an done thing only-the 2nd Amendment? An American has a very limited intelligence and singlefocus, he would trade anything and everything for his guns. He doesnt love this country, he loves only his gun. He would abandon every freedom and every one of the other Bill of Rights for it. Do you really want these Rightwing cowards who refuse to fight but send our kids to fight for them? They are nothing but pathetic traitorous cowards. Chickenhawks.
If the Right has its way and continues waging war on every country in the world with different politics and different religions (and countries that have things we want..like their oil)..then the US will soon be little different than the countries we despise.
Do you really want rightwing nuts like An American running this country? Focused on one thing an done thing only-the 2nd Amendment? An American has a very limited intelligence and singlefocus, he would trade anything and everything for his guns. He doesnt love this country, he loves only his gun. He would abandon every freedom and every one of the other Bill of Rights for it. Do you really want these Rightwing cowards who refuse to fight but send our kids to fight for them? They are nothing but pathetic traitorous cowards. Chickenhawks.
If the Right has its way and continues waging war on every country in the world with different politics and different religions (and countries that have things we want..like their oil)..then the US will soon be little different than the countries we despise.
Tree Hugger - I checked several of your search results but not one mentioned any specific citizen that has had these rights "revoked" as you claimed.
Please provide a link showing at least one citizen who has had these rights revoked rather than people who simply claim someone could have these rights revoked.
There's a big difference you know.
Posted by KW on November 14, 2007 03:26 PMAs you can see htiek can't counter anything I wrote about the fraud that the Democrats and the media perpetrated on the American people.This is not about just the gun issue.It is about Democrats like htiek lying to the American people on all issues.This would include the war in Iraq.Tree Hugger who do you think are the ones that want to take our freedoms away.The ones that want to disarm the citizens or the ones that are trying to protect all citizens' rights to be armed.The Democrats are trying to disarm the people and common sense will tell you they are up to no good.Read your history.
Posted by An American on November 14, 2007 03:39 PMIs it the left (Democrats) or the right (Republicans) leading the nation to ruin? John McCain says in 2003 the war in Iraq is lost and Republicans continue attempts to turn is around. The 2008 election will trounce the left for its incompetence.
W. Bush must notice the chaos resulting from a President declaring an event of significant nature leading to emergency rule:
So we call on all "Peace Pledge" Democrats to honor their pledges by voting NO.
A new study by Democrats themselves puts the economic cost of the Iraq occupation at $1.6 TRILLION, or $21,000 per family. Every single penny has been wasted - not to mention the human cost to Americans and Iraqis and global hatred of the USA.
Why would Democrats want to give Bush one penny more?
All Congress has to do is Just Say No and refuse to provide any new funds, and tell Bush to use existing funds to bring all our troops safely home. Bush has plenty of money - besides all previous Iraq funds, Bush just signed a Pentagon bill with a $40 billion increase.
Tell your Representatives: No More Funds for Iraq
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/124
Deliver the same message on the phone: 202-224-3121
And send a message Democrats cannot ignore by joining the Democratic Donor Strike against the DCCC and DSCC.
http://democrats.com/donor-strike-2007
AA...again...I'd like to know what CURRENT, credible threats there are to the 2nd amendment....I"m still waiting.
James...again....spin all you'd like, but you still can't run from the FACT that taxex will have to be raised to pay for the iraq war, the spending cuts in time of war and the out of control deficit spending. The funny thing is that when you get cornered you just deny, deny, deny.
Posted by jay on November 14, 2007 05:06 PMJay,
"James...again....spin all you'd like, but you still can't run from the FACT that taxex will have to be raised to pay for the iraq war, the spending cuts in time of war and the out of control deficit spending. The funny thing is that when you get cornered you just deny, deny, deny"
What spending cuts were you talking about, the last I heard there was over 2 billion of pork in the last budget.?
Hasn't the tax revenue actually increased since those tax cuts took effect?
Maybe if we stop funding the illegals that might help the budget deficit. And how about cutting back on all of the social welfare freebies that would help.
Posted by jgd777 on November 14, 2007 05:34 PMjgd777,
I have a hunch that jay will answer
"Hasn't the tax revenue actually increased since those tax cuts took effect?"
with yet another leftist platitude about the heartless greed of conservatives. So here's a better answer:
In 2003, when President Bush lowered the rates on income, dividends and capital gains, the Federal tax receipts were $1,783 billion. In 2004 the Federal tax receipts grew to $2,568 billion. Tax receipts have soared by 46% in the four years following the Bush rate reductions and that is the largest increase in US history.
That's the plain, unvarnished truth.
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 05:50 PMAn American: :The Brady Campaign is an anti-gun organization.They do not believe the Second Amendment is a right of the individual to own guns."
Of course, as is customary in the postings by An American, this is an untruth, to put it euphemistically.
An American will NOT produce any statement by the Brady Campaign saying that individuals do not have a right to own guns.
The Brady Campaign's purpose is to stem gun violence. Bad idea?
It is one thing to disagree with the gun control measures which the Brady Campaign advocates.
It is another to grossly misrepresent the organization as An American has done.
If An American had to tell the truth in his posts, we would hear very little from him.
Posted by Truth on November 15, 2007 10:31 AM