PDA

View Full Version : An America Without a Conservative Voice.



Boris The Animal
10-28-2016, 06:30 PM
Simple question for the crowd here with a poll. Would America be far better off if only the Left governed it?

Chloe
10-28-2016, 06:36 PM
I'd say no simply because even what constitutes the "left" can vary greatly as well and i'd be disappointed in a Hillary government just as I would your version. I don't like most conservative views but having debate between ideas is a healthy thing to have in government. Of course i'm certain if the shoe was on the other foot you'd have no issue only having conservative voices. I'm not going to vote in your silly poll though.

Peter1469
10-28-2016, 06:39 PM
No. And it would be nice if all conservatives rallied around the concept of federalism and limited government.

When you demand that the power of the State be used to enforce your morality, or to bring democracy to a foreign land, you are being a Statist- just as the left is.

resister
10-28-2016, 06:47 PM
I'd say no simply because even what constitutes the "left" can vary greatly as well and i'd be disappointed in a Hillary government just as I would your version. I don't like most conservative views but having debate between ideas is a healthy thing to have in government. Of course i'm certain if the shoe was on the other foot you'd have no issue only having conservative voices. I'm not going to vote in your silly poll though. So why waste your time replying?When you go to vote for your vandal candidate,remember,your vote will push her from 2% to 2.000000000000001%

Chloe
10-28-2016, 06:50 PM
So why waste your time replying?When you go to vote for your vandal candidate,remember,your vote will push her from 2% to 2.000000000000001%

I am not the topic and neither is Jill Stein

exploited
10-28-2016, 06:51 PM
I am not the topic and neither is Jill Stein

Haha your new avatar is hilarious.

patrickt
10-28-2016, 07:42 PM
Simple question for the crowd here with a poll. Would America be far better off if only the Left governed it?

Governed? The left has no desire to govern. They want to rule. No Constitution and no Congress.

When President Obama took over there were no conservative voices. I seem to recall the Democrats changing the locks on doors in Congress and not giving Republicans keys. So, we had two years of no conservative voice and we got, "You can learn what's in the bill after we pass it." Okay, folks, we're learning. Some of us are learning, anyway.

Crepitus
10-28-2016, 08:24 PM
No. Checks and balances.

Now if you ask me the same question about extremists? Different answer. We can do without nut jobs that run around calling everybody to the left of rush Limbaugh a communist.

Hint hint........

Axiomatic
10-28-2016, 08:28 PM
I say yes because progressive statist forces need to be beaten back and conservatives have always failed at that. Instead, they just become the progressives of yesterday.

Plus, the name sucks. Who wants to keep things the way they are?

Plus, they really do have a reactionary mindset which is destined for defeat. (it's why they get defeated on every front)

Plus, the whole thing is defective beyond repair, and I wouldn't mind seeing progressives crash it into the ground.

Dr. Who
10-28-2016, 08:38 PM
I believe in checks and balances in government. Both perspectives are valid and together prevent extremist politics from gaining ground.

Chris
10-28-2016, 08:48 PM
I'd say no simply because even what constitutes the "left" can vary greatly as well and i'd be disappointed in a Hillary government just as I would your version. I don't like most conservative views but having debate between ideas is a healthy thing to have in government. Of course i'm certain if the shoe was on the other foot you'd have no issue only having conservative voices. I'm not going to vote in your silly poll though.


What constitute the right is just as varied.

You're right, it takes all kinds. It'd be boring without challenges to one's opinions and ideas.

Axiomatic
10-28-2016, 08:53 PM
The incentive structures just aren't aligned for checks to work.



You've got one group trying to use government guns to accomplish one particular agenda, and one other group doing the same thing in pursuit of another particular agenda.

If you really want balance, you need some anti-statists in there.

Mister D
10-28-2016, 08:59 PM
I'd say no simply because even what constitutes the "left" can vary greatly as well and i'd be disappointed in a Hillary government just as I would your version. I don't like most conservative views but having debate between ideas is a healthy thing to have in government. Of course i'm certain if the shoe was on the other foot you'd have no issue only having conservative voices. I'm not going to vote in your silly poll though.

My God I hate that avatar...

Mister D
10-28-2016, 09:01 PM
Anyway, America hasn't had a conservative voice since 1865. It has been run by liberal capitalists ever since.

Chloe
10-29-2016, 10:28 AM
My God I hate that avatar...

Why? Is it too happy?

donttread
10-29-2016, 11:35 AM
What constitute the right is just as varied.

You're right, it takes all kinds. It'd be boring without challenges to one's opinions and ideas.

Too broad a category to answer. For example the founders were fiscally conservative social liberals, like Rand Paul or Gary Johnson. Few of today's so called conservatives are anything more than socially conservative assholes. So if you're talking about fiscal conservatives we have very few in our government and our government ain't workin out so well. So you do the math.

Standing Wolf
10-29-2016, 12:02 PM
Without an agreed-upon definition of "Conservatives", the question is impossible to answer intelligently. The identical situation would exist had the word "Liberals" been substituted.

Is a Conservative someone who is so obsessed with maintaining a "small government" that they would rather permit a state or local government to run roughshod over the rights of its citizens as Americans than to acknowledge that sometimes the exercise of federal authority is a necessity? Many of that mindset self-identify as "Conservatives" - and, yes, their presence would not be missed.

Is a Conservative a person who holds that change, novelty and innovation are not always the harbingers of the good - that change for change's sake can, while masquerading as progress, often be a dead end...or, worse, the edge of a cliff. A Conservative voice like that is always needed.

The word "Conservative", every bit as much as the word "Liberal", is used by a huge number of people today as a general description of everything they like and approve of, or a general description of everything they despise. It can, with complete accuracy, be applied to some common sense views and several appalling ones.

As others have written, the dynamic balance between the traditionally Conservative and Liberal viewpoints in our government is an absolute necessity. Each side has its extremists, its nutcases, its fools and its blind hypocrites; both sides also contain important perspectives and voices that need to be listened to.

decedent
10-29-2016, 12:06 PM
A conservative voice is important in any society. A radical voice can be harmful, however.

Mister D
10-29-2016, 12:07 PM
Why? Is it too happy?

Yes. It's like you just personally removed every ounce of garbage from the world's oceans.

donttread
10-29-2016, 12:12 PM
Without an agreed-upon definition of "Conservatives", the question is impossible to answer intelligently. The identical situation would exist had the word "Liberals" been substituted.

Is a Conservative someone who is so obsessed with maintaining a "small government" that they would rather permit a state or local government to run roughshod over the rights of its citizens as Americans than to acknowledge that sometimes the exercise of federal authority is a necessity? Many of that mindset self-identify as "Conservatives" - and, yes, their presence would not be missed.

Is a Conservative a person who holds that change, novelty and innovation are not always the harbingers of the good - that change for change's sake can, while masquerading as progress, often be a dead end...or, worse, the edge of a cliff. A Conservative voice like that is always needed.

The word "Conservative", every bit as much as the word "Liberal", is used by a huge number of people today as a general description of everything they like and approve of, or a general description of everything they despise. It can, with complete accuracy, be applied to some common sense views and several appalling ones.

As others have written, the dynamic balance between the traditionally Conservative and Liberal viewpoints in our government is an absolute necessity. Each side has its extremists, its nutcases, its fools and its blind hypocrites; both sides also contain important perspectives and voices that need to be listened to.


Your second paragrapgh ususally plays out in reverse with the feds riding "roughshod"

Cigar
10-29-2016, 12:19 PM
Just a Few more Decades ... and they'll be Gone :grin:

... and not a minute too soon :laugh: F'ck'em

Peter1469
10-29-2016, 12:22 PM
Your second paragrapgh ususally plays out in reverse with the feds riding "roughshod"

The second paragraph describes federalism. The states have power over "life, health, and safety" issues. That gives them very broad authority to legislate. The federal government has (should) only the limited powers that the states gave it.

A conservative would want their state have less laws and regulations, not more.

Boris The Animal
10-29-2016, 01:06 PM
A conservative voice is important in any society. A radical voice can be harmful, however.Then why support anyone in the Democrat party as there are nothing but radical leftists there.

AZ Jim
10-29-2016, 01:12 PM
America without conservatives is like the comedy store without jokes. What would normal Americans have to laugh at?

Peter1469
10-29-2016, 01:26 PM
More taxes?

Axiomatic
10-29-2016, 02:16 PM
America without conservatives is like the comedy store without jokes. What would normal Americans have to laugh at?

The progressives who take their place, of course. They would immediately become known as "the conservatives" and the transition would be seamless, as it always has been.

resister
10-29-2016, 02:20 PM
America without conservatives is like the comedy store without jokes. What would normal Americans have to laugh at?
Maybe the endless stream of scandals that plague your queen mother bee?

decedent
10-29-2016, 03:41 PM
Then why support anyone in the Democrat party as there are nothing but radical leftists there.

First, the Democrat party isn't "nothing but radical leftists."

Second, I support the Democrats because they have a moderate, sane, progressive, useful plan to improve the economy, improve social justice, and increase the standard of living for the average American.

exploited
10-29-2016, 05:08 PM
America, and in fact the entire world, would be significantly better off without social conservatives or neoconservatives. Fiscal conservatives are great though.

Chris
10-29-2016, 05:45 PM
Let's throw out social justice warriors and Marxists.

Mister D
10-29-2016, 05:57 PM
Stupid thread manages to get dumber. World class discussion!

maineman
10-29-2016, 06:03 PM
If conservatives want to participate in compromise governance and realize that they are not the only patriotic voices in the discussion, I would love to join with them to craft solutions that work for both sides of the aisle. If they insist in being obstinate and walking away from the table until everyone decides to accept THEIR vision of America, I hope they are relegated to the back bench. Let them destroy red states like Brownback has done to Kansas, but don't ever let them get behind the steering wheel of the federal government. I am perfectly willing to let them hold court in those states where prairie dogs and pigs outnumber people, but the places where the majority of people live ought not to have to deal with their refusal to participate in consensus governance.

Axiomatic
10-29-2016, 06:30 PM
Second, I support the Democrats because they have a moderate, sane, progressive, useful plan to improve the economy, improve social justice, and increase the standard of living for the average American.

^This person seriously believes that and elects those who make your laws and there's nothing you can do about it because you support the system which allows for it.^

decedent
10-29-2016, 06:34 PM
^This person seriously believes that and elects those who make your laws and there's nothing you can do about it because you support the system which allows for it.^

^This person is so angry that I have rights^

Axiomatic
10-29-2016, 06:37 PM
^This person is so angry that I have rights^

If you only know how false and ironic that statement is...

MRogersNhood
10-29-2016, 06:44 PM
There haven't been enough checks and balances in the government since Carter's 2nd Congress.
Under Carter they probed the loophole.He didn't like it.
Carter knew that was bad.He was a weird president.I truly believe he meant well;The results were not so great.
Here's what I have to say about Carter: Presidential physical fitness award.
If Michelle Obama's so great;Y she no do that?
Look it up sometime.It's back in the days of Physical fitness is no joke.
Then came Reagan's 2nd Congress who voted themselves the Treasury and bah fongula to the American Citizens.
I think they all should be tried retroactively for what they did.
Immune to insider trading laws? are you serious? Unlimited lobbying AKA bribery? wtf?!

Bethere
10-29-2016, 09:08 PM
The second paragraph describes federalism. The states have power over "life, health, and safety" issues. That gives them very broad authority to legislate. The federal government has (should) only the limited powers that the states gave it.

A conservative would want their state have less laws and regulations, not more.

False:

Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the 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.

Axiomatic
10-29-2016, 09:22 PM
Hey look, congress is authorized to write welfare checks to states.

Boris The Animal
10-29-2016, 10:53 PM
If conservatives want to participate in compromise governance and realize that they are not the only patriotic voices in the discussion, I would love to join with them to craft solutions that work for both sides of the aisle. If they insist in being obstinate and walking away from the table until everyone decides to accept THEIR vision of America, I hope they are relegated to the back bench. Let them destroy red states like Brownback has done to Kansas, but don't ever let them get behind the steering wheel of the federal government. I am perfectly willing to let them hold court in those states where prairie dogs and pigs outnumber people, but the places where the majority of people live ought not to have to deal with their refusal to participate in consensus governance.Only problem with that is compromise means selling themselves out to the enemy.

MRogersNhood
10-29-2016, 11:01 PM
Just a Few more Decades ... and they'll be Gone :grin:

... and not a minute too soon :laugh: F'ck'em

I take it you were one of the two votes so far,aye?

MRogersNhood
10-29-2016, 11:02 PM
False:

Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the 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.
So why ain't that getting done?

MRogersNhood
10-29-2016, 11:07 PM
Then why support anyone in the Democrat party as there are nothing but radical leftists there.

I find that hard to believe.
While the uh.."radical leftists" have infiltrated the Democrat party.some people have been there for 60 years plus and you know they're not buying that radical leftist agenda stuff.
Not at all.

Standing Wolf
10-29-2016, 11:11 PM
Only problem with that is compromise means selling themselves out to the enemy.

When the "enemy" to whom they feel they would be selling themselves out is actually a majority of the American people, one has to question the clarity of their vision over some issues.

I'm reminded of a line from the film, The American President: "How do you have patience for people who claim they love America, but clearly can't stand Americans?"

Conservatives can be right, but they can also be stunningly, glaringly wrong-headed. They probably do their best work in the realm of economics, the Second Amendment and some aspects of law enforcement, and their worst when it comes to pretty much everything else.

maineman
10-29-2016, 11:17 PM
Only problem with that is compromise means selling themselves out to the enemy.

so...it's your way or nothing? liberals can have NO voice in your America?

Boris The Animal
10-29-2016, 11:30 PM
so...it's your way or nothing? liberals can have NO voice in your America?Especially not after they ruined basically every urban sh!thole that has been run by them for DECADES.

Peter1469
10-29-2016, 11:57 PM
False:

Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the 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.

Post the rest of Article 1, sec. 8- the enumerated powers.

Boris The Animal
10-30-2016, 12:12 AM
When the "enemy" to whom they feel they would be selling themselves out is actually a majority of the American people, one has to question the clarity of their vision over some issues.

I'm reminded of a line from the film, The American President: "How do you have patience for people who claim they love America, but clearly can't stand Americans?"

Conservatives can be right, but they can also be stunningly, glaringly wrong-headed. They probably do their best work in the realm of economics, the Second Amendment and some aspects of law enforcement, and their worst when it comes to pretty much everything else.And Liberals are clean and pure as the wind driven snow, right? When you have the equivalent of two to three generations of Americans slaughtered at the abortuaries since 1973, attempts to destroy and redefine marriage and family, attacks on the church, I question Liberals' so called "tolerance". Hence their being branded the enemy, because they are.

maineman
10-30-2016, 12:33 AM
Especially not after they ruined basically every urban sh!thole that has been run by them for DECADES.

so when we get the senate and the house back, and Hillary is in the white house, you'll totally understand when we shove our platform right up your ass? When Hillary nominates super liberal and young SCOTUS justices who will be in the majority there for twenty years and codify the liberal agenda into constitutional precedent, you'll understand that you really brought it on all by yourself? Really. If you see no need to compromise with us, why the FUCK should we give a shit about trying to compromise with YOU?

Green Arrow
10-30-2016, 12:42 AM
so when we get the senate and the house back, and Hillary is in the white house, you'll totally understand when we shove our platform right up your ass? When Hillary nominates super liberal and young SCOTUS justices who will be in the majority there for twenty years and codify the liberal agenda into constitutional precedent, you'll understand that you really brought it on all by yourself? Really. If you see no need to compromise with us, why the FUCK should we give a shit about trying to compromise with YOU?

There is no rational analysis that suggests the Democrats will get the House back this cycle. You're down 60 seats and at most you'll pick up 25-30 this cycle.

Nicole
10-30-2016, 01:00 AM
I believe in checks and balances in government. Both perspectives are valid and together prevent extremist politics from gaining ground.

I agree with you. Two strong parties keep government from running off in one direction.

Unfortunately, the fractures in the GOP have weakened it. That's a problem for the country.

Bethere
10-30-2016, 04:25 AM
Post the rest of Article 1, sec. 8- the enumerated powers.

Why when the 9th amendment says that it is an incomplete list?

Peter1469
10-30-2016, 05:57 AM
Why when the 9th amendment says that it is an incomplete list?

The 9th discusses the rights retained by the people (https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt9_user.html#amdt9_hd1). The "enumerated rights" discussed in the 9th Amendment do not refer to the "enumerated powers" discussed in Art. 1, sec. 8.


Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.1 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt9_user.html#fnb1) Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.”2 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt9_user.html#fnb2) It is clear from its text and from Madison’s statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas[p.1504]not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.3 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt9_user.html#fnb3) Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.

I find it odd that anyone knowledge of history, specifically, of the early US history, would think that the states ceded all power to the federal government with the ratification of the Constitution.

maineman
10-30-2016, 07:27 AM
There is no rational analysis that suggests the Democrats will get the House back this cycle. You're down 60 seats and at most you'll pick up 25-30 this cycle.

why am I not surprised that you missed the point of my post, and instead sought to delve into minutia?