Just what IS conservativism?

Bfgrn said:
That is quite a noble rant Dixie. It is one of the better self centered justifications I've heard, but here's the problem. I don't believe a word of it and here's why; your fairy tale requires other people to play along and conform to a role you supply for them. There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart' but empty headed 'liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, I refuse to play along Dixie. If you had the intelligence and curiosity to find out what the 'War on Poverty' was about and what it wasn't about, it would save you from all the bloviation that comes out of your ass. But it's a lot easier for you to define it under YOUR self righteous terms so you don't have to care. It is also predictable that you chose 'welfare', because that fits so neatly into your 'dependency' and 'entitlement' dismissal of others. There are reasons for and realities to poverty, you have focused on the least of them.

When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program strove for maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)

Ref
Click to expand...

Excellent post. Good for you! :good4u: :clap: :hand:
 
Bfgrn said:
Hey Dixie, we now know what you're problem is; ADHD.
Click to expand...

Thank you Bfoon, I can always tell when I've won the debate with a Liberal, because they begin to avoid the points I made and start attacking me personally. For the record, I know I don't have ADHD, my Dad cured me of it when I was about 6-years-old. A good sound whooping with a leather belt will fix that problem every time. It is largely a disorder invented by Liberals who made the mistake of listening to a pinhead by the name of Benjamin Spock, and raised their children without discipline. Those kids grew up and had kids, and they suffer from this concocted disorder.

If you want to "fix" poverty, you have to first "fix" the problem of 7 out of 10 minority children being born out of wedlock. That is the ultimate key, the linchpin which perpetuates the condition generation after generation in America. You can throw all the money at it you like, we've thrown $15 trillion at it, and the problem still exists. Until you address the root cause, you will never solve the problem. Heaping one social entitlement on top of another, has not diminished poverty one single bit, and it never will. What you are doing is actually counterproductive and serves to foster an attitude which enables poverty to flourish and continue. It is why you are so vehemently opposed by the right, not because we don't care about helping people. You're pouring water on a 'grease fire' and we're telling you it's not the proper way to extinguish the fire, and history bears that out in statistics. Still, you will continue to ignorantly try to chase the problem with false solutions that haven't worked.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. I accept your definition that it is the antithesis of conservatism. Modern conservatism seeks to abide strictly by the Constitution. By corollary, modern liberalism seeks to usurp it.
2. You’re the one parsing Hamilton’s argument. According to your previous post, he clearly said: “provided that the spending is general in nature”. That jives perfectly with what’s codified in The Constitution: “general Welfare of the United States”, not “general welfare of the People”.
3. First of all, Lincoln wasn’t a Founder. Second, in your quote of his it says nothing about ignoring the Constitution to “do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do...”. Again, if the People want the government to do more than the Constitution authorizes, then they should amend it.
Click to expand...

1) You've just proven beyond a doubt that conservatism is the antithesis of liberalism. And you just verified what Ted Sorensen aptly observed; "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people".

2) WHAT is the United States? Buildings, flags, dirt? The very Constitution you claim to have a unique knowledge of that liberals lack starts out with the words: We the PEOPLE of the United States.

The Declaration of Independence, one of the most enlightened documents in human history states;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The governed are PEOPLE. Did we declare war on Japan because they put holes in the hulls of our ships? Did we go into Afghanistan because terrorists broke the glass on our buildings? W-T-F!!!

3) I am well aware that out 16th President was not one of the founding fathers. Are you aware #3 was not about Lincoln's quote?

The key words Lincoln said that you want to ignore: "The legitimate object of Government is..."

Now please answer # 3...Do you know how our founding fathers GOVERNED, how they viewed corporations and how they viewed deregulation?
 
Dixie said:
Thank you Bfoon, I can always tell when I've won the debate with a Liberal, because they begin to avoid the points I made and start attacking me personally. For the record, I know I don't have ADHD, my Dad cured me of it when I was about 6-years-old. A good sound whooping with a leather belt will fix that problem every time. It is largely a disorder invented by Liberals who made the mistake of listening to a pinhead by the name of Benjamin Spock, and raised their children without discipline. Those kids grew up and had kids, and they suffer from this concocted disorder.

If you want to "fix" poverty, you have to first "fix" the problem of 7 out of 10 minority children being born out of wedlock. That is the ultimate key, the linchpin which perpetuates the condition generation after generation in America. You can throw all the money at it you like, we've thrown $15 trillion at it, and the problem still exists. Until you address the root cause, you will never solve the problem. Heaping one social entitlement on top of another, has not diminished poverty one single bit, and it never will. What you are doing is actually counterproductive and serves to foster an attitude which enables poverty to flourish and continue. It is why you are so vehemently opposed by the right, not because we don't care about helping people. You're pouring water on a 'grease fire' and we're telling you it's not the proper way to extinguish the fire, and history bears that out in statistics. Still, you will continue to ignorantly try to chase the problem with false solutions that haven't worked.
Click to expand...

If personal attacks are a sign of losing a debate, then why do you start a debate with them? WHO are the fucks that stop every attempt at sex education and contraceptives in schools and communities? Liberals?

The war on Poverty was NOT a handout. I explained that in detail. You say you don't have ADHD, so I will take you at your word. So that means you are just a stupid fucking moron.
 
Last edited:
Bfgrn said:
1) You've just proven beyond a doubt that conservatism is the antithesis of liberalism. And you just verified what Ted Sorensen aptly observed; "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people".

2) WHAT is the United States? Buildings, flags, dirt? The very Constitution you claim to have a unique knowledge of that liberals lack starts out with the words: We the PEOPLE of the United States.

The Declaration of Independence, one of the most enlightened documents in human history states;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The governed are PEOPLE. Did we declare war on Japan because they put holes in the hulls of our ships? Did we go into Afghanistan because terrorists broke the glass on our buildings? W-T-F!!!

3) I am well aware that out 16th President was not one of the founding fathers. Are you aware #3 was not about Lincoln's quote?

The key words Lincoln said that you want to ignore: "The legitimate object of Government is..."

Now please answer # 3...Do you know how our founding fathers GOVERNED, how they viewed corporations and how they viewed deregulation?
Click to expand...
1. There you go for the third time; you have failed at this aspect of our debate. Again, it would be nice for you if you got to define what your opposition’s position is, but debate doesn’t work that way. Your position is so weak that you feel the need to break this simple rule.
2. There are three entities described in the Constitution. "These are most simply stated in Amendment X: 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." That is the federal government, the (now 50) states, and the people. Therefore the "general welfare of the United States" means exactly what it says, not welfare to the people or to the states.
3. I am aware of how they governed. I am also aware that you appear to have misunderstood Lincoln’s quote. Again he says nothing of expanding the role of government without passing amendments to the Constitution.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. There you go for the third time; you have failed at this aspect of our debate. Again, it would be nice for you if you got to define what your opposition’s position is, but debate doesn’t work that way. Your position is so weak that you feel the need to break this simple rule.
2. There are three entities described in the Constitution. "These are most simply stated in Amendment X: 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." That is the federal government, the (now 50) states, and the people. Therefore the "general welfare of the United States" means exactly what it says, not welfare to the people or to the states.
3. I am I am also aware that you appear to have misunderstood Lincoln’s quote. Again he says nothing of expanding the role of government without passing amendments to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

1) You defined yourself with your total misunderstanding of the intent of our founders and the meaning of 'We the PEOPLE' and 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed'.

2) So you must be a Tenther. Are you also a Birther and a Truther?

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

3) OK...if you are aware of how they governed; how did they view corporations and how did they view deregulation (did the believe in regulation)?
 
Bfgrn said:
1) You defined yourself with your total misunderstanding of the intent of our founders and the meaning of 'We the PEOPLE' and 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed'.

2) So you must be a Tenther. Are you also a Birther and a Truther?

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

3) OK...if you are aware of how they governed; how did they view corporations and how did they view deregulation (did the believe in regulation)?
Click to expand...

1. No. The misunderstanding appears to be all on your side, as demonstrated several times now.
2. Now, now, there's no reason to start calling me silly names because you apparently don't understand the Constitution.
3. It doesn't really matter. 'The present belongs to the living.' What matters is that we abide by the codified rules of law, not your interpretation of how certain individuals acted during their tenure. Besides, this debate is about you liberals willfully usurping the supreme law of the land. Your evil bogeyman of corporations is not even being discussed.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. No. The misunderstanding appears to be all on your side, as demonstrated several times now.
2. Now, now, there's no reason to start calling me silly names because you apparently don't understand the Constitution.
3. It doesn't really matter. 'The present belongs to the living.' What matters is that we abide by the codified rules of law, not your interpretation of how certain individuals acted during their tenure. Besides, this debate is about you liberals willfully usurping the supreme law of the land. Your evil bogeyman of corporations is not even being discussed.
Click to expand...

The only ones that are enemies of the Constitution are those that try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

Corporations and our founding fathers goes back to an earlier question I asked you. Why do you refuse to answer? Were out founding fathers free marketeers that believed government must take a 'hands off' approach to corporations?
 
Bfgrn said:
The only ones that are enemies of the Constitution are those that try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

Corporations and our founding fathers goes back to an earlier question I asked you. Why do you refuse to answer? Were out founding fathers free marketeers that believed government must take a 'hands off' approach to corporations?
Click to expand...
I was shocked to discover that corporations were suppose to be temporary! They sure did become popular and hang around!
 
Bfgrn said:
The only ones that are enemies of the Constitution are those that try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

Corporations and our founding fathers goes back to an earlier question I asked you. Why do you refuse to answer? Were out founding fathers free marketeers that believed government must take a 'hands off' approach to corporations?
Click to expand...

1. I realize that you Liberals see the Constitution as a weapon, because that's exactly what it is to folks who want unlimited government power. And we Conservatives will wield it like a sledgehammer against you.
2. I answered your question, just not in the way that you wanted me to. What part of my statement are you having trouble understanding?
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. I realize that you Liberals see the Constitution as a weapon, because that's exactly what it is to folks who want unlimited government power. And we Conservatives will wield it like a sledgehammer against you.
2. I answered your question, just not in the way that you wanted me to. What part of my statement are you having trouble understanding?
Click to expand...

1) As I said in the beginning, the general welfare clause debate has been ongoing for centuries. Men and women smarter than you and me have not resolved it. For you to claim the YOU have is not only ridiculous, it's childish.

2) Very simple, tell me how our founding fathers governed in regards to corporations. Did they regulate them, did they place government restrictions on them, did they give them autonomy to do their work?
 
http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html

Bfoon, the link above will give you a definitive history of how the "general welfare" clause has evolved since 1937. You continue to try and claim the Founding Fathers advocated your Social Liberalism when they wrote the words, but your particular ideals would not have even been recognized in 1911, by Woodrow Wilson, the father of the modern Progressive movement. You are making an abject fool of yourself suggesting the Founding Fathers condoned this shit. They most certainly did not. In fact, up until the Civil War, the Federal government had very little power over corporations or individuals. Therefore, to try and establish some fantastical argument that our Founders intended this or that with regard to corporations, is just silly and ridiculous. They did no such thing. Our Founders were committed to Free Market economy, not Socialist Marxism.

To sum this up for you, we've reached the end of the road for your ideology. We currently have a national debt of over $13 trillion, and it's currently growing at a rate of $1 trillion per year under this administration. This is untenable, and will eventually bankrupt our nation. It's time to stop the binge spending, it's time to start paying back the massive debt we've accumulated. We're going to have to roll up our sleeves and do some hard work now, and we're going to have to learn to do without things. I know you don't want to do this, but we really have no other choice at this point. You are like the gambler who sold his house and went to Vegas, lost all your money, then pawned everything you owned, then lost that, and went to the bank and borrowed all the money they would lend you, and lost all of that... and now, here you are, pleading for just a little more money. It's over, it's time to face the music now. No more spending, no more borrowing, no more mortgaging my children and grandchildrens futures. Sorry you're going to have to learn how to take care of yourself, but that is the reality we face. Get used to it.
 
Dixie said:
http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html

Bfoon, the link above will give you a definitive history of how the "general welfare" clause has evolved since 1937. You continue to try and claim the Founding Fathers advocated your Social Liberalism when they wrote the words, but your particular ideals would not have even been recognized in 1911, by Woodrow Wilson, the father of the modern Progressive movement. You are making an abject fool of yourself suggesting the Founding Fathers condoned this shit. They most certainly did not. In fact, up until the Civil War, the Federal government had very little power over corporations or individuals. Therefore, to try and establish some fantastical argument that our Founders intended this or that with regard to corporations, is just silly and ridiculous. They did no such thing. Our Founders were committed to Free Market economy, not Socialist Marxism.

To sum this up for you, we've reached the end of the road for your ideology. We currently have a national debt of over $13 trillion, and it's currently growing at a rate of $1 trillion per year under this administration. This is untenable, and will eventually bankrupt our nation. It's time to stop the binge spending, it's time to start paying back the massive debt we've accumulated. We're going to have to roll up our sleeves and do some hard work now, and we're going to have to learn to do without things. I know you don't want to do this, but we really have no other choice at this point. You are like the gambler who sold his house and went to Vegas, lost all your money, then pawned everything you owned, then lost that, and went to the bank and borrowed all the money they would lend you, and lost all of that... and now, here you are, pleading for just a little more money. It's over, it's time to face the music now. No more spending, no more borrowing, no more mortgaging my children and grandchildrens futures. Sorry you're going to have to learn how to take care of yourself, but that is the reality we face. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

OK Dixie, I'll ask you; tell me how our founding fathers governed in regards to corporations. Did they regulate them, did they place government restrictions on them, did they give them autonomy to do their work?
 
Bfgrn said:
OK Dixie, I'll ask you; tell me how our founding fathers governed in regards to corporations. Did they regulate them, did they place government restrictions on them, did they give them autonomy to do their work?
Click to expand...

Bfoon, the Founding Fathers and the Federal government itself, had little to do with privately owned business or individuals. The establishment of a Federal government was solely for the purpose of uniting a group of states together, and combining the militia power of those states under one unified flag. They did establish uniformity regarding trade among the states, but their role in that was very restricted and limited. The STATES controlled much more, with regard to 'corporations' to what extent private 'corporations' existed in the early United States.
 
Last edited:
Let's make something clear here, because I get the feeling you are trying to bait us, then you plan to unveil some blog post to enlighten us on what the Founding Fathers may have said regarding those 'evil corporations' back in the day. In the late 1700s, the vast majority of 'corporations' were owned and operated solely by governments or the crown. There were no privately-owned corporations because we hadn't really 'invented' free enterprise, that's what we were in the process of doing here. Now, the Founding Fathers were indeed concerned with influence of British-owned 'corporations' having any kind of political power in 18th century America. But we don't really have government-owned corporations now, at least not operating in America. So you can go ahead now, and post whatever irrelevant idiocy you were setting us up for, I just thought I would interject that point into the discussion before you did.
 
Bfgrn said:
1) As I said in the beginning, the general welfare clause debate has been ongoing for centuries. Men and women smarter than you and me have not resolved it. For you to claim the YOU have is not only ridiculous, it's childish.

2) Very simple, tell me how our founding fathers governed in regards to corporations. Did they regulate them, did they place government restrictions on them, did they give them autonomy to do their work?
Click to expand...

1. Actually, as I have explained to you there is no general welfare clause. The fact that liberals continue to insist that on exists is inconsequential. You've lost this point now due to your "Appeal to Popularity" logical fallacy:

Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite its popularity.
Click to expand...

2.Again. what presidents did while they were in office, Founders or not, is inconsequential to the argument. You've lost this point due to your "Appeal to Antiquity" logical fallacy:

An appeal to antiquity is the opposite of an appeal to novelty. Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can’t learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.
Click to expand...

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. Actually, as I have explained to you there is no general welfare clause. The fact that liberals continue to insist that on exists is inconsequential. You've lost this point now due to your "Appeal to Popularity" logical fallacy:



2.Again. what presidents did while they were in office, Founders or not, is inconsequential to the argument. You've lost this point due to your "Appeal to Antiquity" logical fallacy:



http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
Click to expand...

Damn Yankee said:
1. There you go again, back to square one. It would be nice for you if you got to define what your opposition’s position is, but debate doesn’t work that way.
Click to expand...

DY, you are neither the moderator or the judge, you are a mere participant. So, not only did you break the rules of defining your opposition’s position, you are guilty of a gross violation by attempting to coerce the outcome. The penalty for that violation is your immediate disqualification...

Sorry DY. I don't make the rules, I just follow them.
 
Bfgrn said:
DY, you are neither the moderator or the judge, you are a mere participant. So, not only did you break the rules of defining your opposition’s position, you are guilty of a gross violation by attempting to coerce the outcome. The penalty for that violation is your immediate disqualification...

Sorry DY. I don't make the rules, I just follow them.
Click to expand...

How ironic, you judging me.

Do you still think that there is a "general Welfare" clause?
 
Damn Yankee said:
How ironic, you judging me.

Do you still think that there is a "general Welfare" clause?
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a general welfare clause.

Main Entry: clause
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: provision in document
Synonyms: article, catch*, chapter, codicil, condition, fine print, heading, item, joker*, kicker, limitation, paragraph, part, passage, point, provision, proviso, requirement, rider, section, small print, specification, stipulation

The Federal Constitution

The importance given to the General Welfare clause by the Framers is demonstrated by the fact that it appears, not once, but twice, in the United States Constitution--first in the Preamble, as a statement of the purpose of the Constitution, and then again in Article I, Section 8, which sets forth the substantive powers of Congress.

The clause was taken over from the Articles of Confederation, the preliminary Constitution of the new United States, during the period of the Revolution, until the adoption and ratification of the Constitution of 1787. The Articles of Confederation declared in Article III (the equivalent of a Preamble) that:

``The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare....''
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top