Posted on 05/16/2002 11:22:07 AM PDT by Reagan Man
Once again it is nice to see you totally repudiate the Second Amemdment, tax reform and social security reform, personal property rights,and the idea of limited government all in one sentence.
ROTFLMAO!!!
WOO-HOO!!! You're the MAN, FDR!
Would all you liberdopian crackheads just quitcherbitchin and get a gubmint job!
Hey! Great benefits, too.
LOLOL!!!
I'm still not convinced you're not a satirist, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. ;^)
That's not true and you know it. I've defined conservative/conservatism before, using standard dictionary definitions.
A conservative is someone who follows a political philosophy, based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.
With asset forfeiture laws we are not talking about rogue cops on the take, but the LEGAL systematic trashing of the 4th amendment by allowing LEO's to simply take cash and property if it might have been involved with drugs or money laundering. Citizens must then petition the government for the return of their property and prove that it was not obtained illegally. That's right, they have to prove their innoccence.
It is illegal to carry $10,000 or more into a train station or airport and the money can be taken on the spot without charges placed on the individual. This is not hypothetical, it happens.
From the Mao-Mao School of Political Science? According to the ideologues, the real tragedy would be if the bullets represented a majoritarian opinion.
If so, I don't recall and I apologize.
HOWEVER...Rush certainly disagrees with you and staunchly rejects the dictionary definition since it becomes relative to the establishment and not fixed on any principle.
For instance, with the dictionary definition, it could easily be argued that conservatism would defend social security, and all manners of increased government involvement in our lives as THAT is the overriding tradition of the US government in the last century. But that is not the definintion of Conservatism I've always been acquianted with.
Absolutely not. The constitution bars all governments from infringing upon our right to chose and ingest the medication which will heal us of our ills.
Anyway, I don't know why this dimwit (the author of the article) is worried. Libertarians only garner 1% of the vote and therefore will never be a threat to the totalitarians who wish to enslave us...right?
Don't forget, YOU fit that dscription!
Totally unsupported nonsense.
BINGO! That's the kind of conservative Mr. RM is, I'm afraid.
Yes, it is a depressant. Narcotics are a different class.
I guess, in that regard, anyone can theorize anything they want. In my book, being a conservative, is being opposed to everything that has happened since the 1930`s. I oppose everything from FDR`s New Deal socialism, to LBJ`s Great Society liberalism, to Clinton's "I Feel Your Pain" liarism. Conservatism doesn't mean, I want to throw America back in time, to the early days of its beginnings. Modern conservatism, isn't against government, its against the over taxation and the bloated federal bureaucracy. I believe the only way the system can be changed, is through the ballot box and through the election of more conservatives to public office.
You all can moan and groan all you want, about this and that, being anti-constitution and anti-founding fathers. It does absolutely, NO good. I repeat, it serves no good purpose. The only way to effect real change, is to face the facts, of the real world. Grab your political agenda, ideology, philosophy, or whatever and run run run, for public office. If you're fortunate enough to win victory, you'll then have the power, influence and opportunity to bring about the changes you support. Otherwise, without following this simple example, you're dead in the water and all you have is rhetoric to get your message out. Rhetoric only goes so far. Just ask Rush.
Like it or not, we'd be United Socialist States of Amerika if not for Rush. How many elected office holders have had more infulence on the population than Rush?
I'm the issue! =^)
Eagle Eye, you've missed my point altogether. Nothing new, though. You do it all the time.
I couldn't agree more! They stood their ground and fought for liberty. It seems to me that today's Republican's are the ones who have resigned themselves to the notion that only a select group of nine people in black robes have the ability to interpret the Constitution.
"Take away our freedom of speech, or freedom of religion and there will be upheaval throughout the land."
Again, I couldn't agree more, but it is our right to keep and bear arms that will keep that from happening and will allow us to stand as a threat to an ever-expanding government.
If you can't see the importance of the right to keep and bear arms as a defense against totalitarianism then I don't know what to say. The founders believed a well-armed citizenry was necessary to the security of a free state.
Actually, the claim is even thinner than that. The controlled substances act claims that a) the federal government cannot distinguish between intra- and interstate commerce; that b) this allows the feds to regulate intrastate commerce as well; and that c) regulation of the manner and amount of manufacture is both necessary and proper for pursuing that end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.