What is "conservatism" about?

I will grant you that McCain has not explicitly called for federal regulation of firearm transfers outside of immediate family members, he sure is implying it.

Ssilicon,

Did you even read the McCain-Lieberman gun show bill?
McCain's support for further federal regulation of private transfers(making them not "private") is fact.
 
acr
I will grant you that McCain has not explicitly called for federal regulation of firearm transfers outside of immediate family members, he sure is implying it.
Click to expand...

Most McCain supporters are living in denial. McCain purposefully worded his statement about the private transfers in such a manner because it is his intent to end private citizen gun sales. He simply worded it in an indirect way so that those who support him can continue to deny his true intentions.
 
Question: WHY couldn't all of this have been brought up BEFORE we somehow stupidly allowed this weasel to be our only line of defense against Obama and Hitlary? Why exactly didn't we drive him out just as readily as we did Rudy?
 
Question: WHY couldn't all of this have been brought up BEFORE we somehow stupidly allowed this weasel to be our only line of defense against Obama and Hitlary? Why exactly didn't we drive him out just as readily as we did Rudy?
Click to expand...

I think he was the best of a bad lot, myself. I like McCain better than all the other candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, but he doesnt stand a chance of getting elected.

Its the end of the republican party. Soon we'll have the "liberal party" and the "extra-liberal party"
 
zukiphile,
I picked up your post through all of the noise in this thread. That makes a whole lot of sense! :)
So IYO does it sound about right to say there's really no such thing as a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' philosophy per se?
 
goslash said:
zukiphile,
I picked up your post through all of the noise in this thread. That makes a whole lot of sense!
Click to expand...

Thanks. I hoped someone would read it.

goslash said:
So IYO does it sound about right to say there's really no such thing as a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' philosophy per se?
Click to expand...

I think you could call conservatism a philosophy, though temperment seems to more accurately connote what it is about. If what you are asking is whether a specific set of policy positions can ever be set forth as THE conservative position, I think you have something there.

Liberalism is different. It is a philospohy or an ideology with readily identifiable and recurring ideas. The most basic idea in all of liberalism is equality, whether equality of opportunity as stressed by classical libs, or equality of result as stressed by reform libs. Other elements of liberal philosophy are less universal but include the importance of the individual's rights even over those of the community and the idea of consent being necessary before any valid exercise of authority. Again this is odd for americans because so many of the traditions we conserve are liberal.

What followed and flowed from the more radical strains of liberalism following the French Revolution, aggressively anti-religious sentiment, materialism, racial anti-semitism (as opposed to traditional anti-judaism) socialism, rationalism, communism, determinism -- all carry some strain of liberalism in them, but are not liberalism themselves.
 
Fremmer
Yeah, the GOA folks are back. The GOA can't even interpret simple federal statutes. At least not correctly. And they accomplish absolutely nothing. The GOA says the moon is made of green cheese, ergo McCain doesn't like guns.
Click to expand...

Please don't blame John McCain's anti-2nd amendment stances on the GOA. The GOA did not tell John McCain to speak at the NRA convention and allude to his intent to end private citizen to citizen gun sales. The GOA did not ask John McCain to do an anti-gun commercial with several other liberals. The GOA did not ask John McCain to co-author the McCain-Feingold bill which limits the free speech of organizations such as the NRA and GOA during the end part of an election year.

No, Mr. McCain has created his own positions. The GOA simply informs the people. The fact that you support a liberal anti-gunner from the republican party gives you less credibility than you will ever recognize in your state of intellectual slumber.
 
Redneck Fur
I think he was the best of a bad lot, myself. I like McCain better than all the other candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, but he doesnt stand a chance of getting elected.

Its the end of the republican party. Soon we'll have the "liberal party" and the "extra-liberal party"
Click to expand...

The fact is, we already have a liberal party and an extra liberal party. I am amazed that people refuse to see that it is already upon us.

The question to all of the pro-2nd amendment people on this board is, which liberal, Obama or McCain, will you choose to begin chipping away at your 2nd amendment rights? Make no mistakes, gentlemen, both of them will do it if given the presidency. If you vote for an anti-gunner like McCain, you will get an anti-gunner.

Yellowfin
Question: WHY couldn't all of this have been brought up BEFORE we somehow stupidly allowed this weasel to be our only line of defense against Obama and Hitlary
Click to expand...

McCain's liberalism has been apparent for at least 7-8 years. He has only gotten worse over time. He even toyed with the idea of leaving the Republican party after the 2000 election. In short, these things were apparent for all to see then, as it is now.

As for McCain being a defense against Obama... I don't see one liberal being a defense against another liberal. John McCain, in many ways, will be worse than anyone can imagine because, just as pro-2nd amendment people are supporting him now even though he is clearly anti-gun, they will also continue to support him as president for awhile as he explains the reasons why he must take away this right, and then another right.

One thing is for certain... the republican party is a former shadow of itself. I guess some voters have easily made the transformation from conservative to supporting liberal republicans. Others have chosen to stand on their principle and not support a party that nominates liberal candidates. I see no reason to ever support a liberal- ever.
 
The presumptive GOP Presidential candidate, John McCain, is in the current issue of American Rifleman advocating the elimination of all private transfer of firearms outside of immediate family members.
Click to expand...

The guy agrees with background checks for private sales, specifically with regards to gun shows. He is not advocating registration. Some may disagree with him on this, most of America though agrees and we are foolish to not see the writing on the wall for this one. This is where the NRA will get pounded on by the fanatics at the GOA when they work to limit the bill that will one day come to only include a no charge, no registration, 1-800 number background check for private sales. Far better to allow the likes of Obama to come in and allow legislation to be crafted eliminating all private sales...

Got news for you, McCain is no conservative. He is though on the right side of 90% of the gun debate. You are going to have a hard time finding a viable candidate who is better on guns (loko at the way the primaries went).

Conservatism once meant smaller gov't, personal responsibility, avoiding nation building exercises and limited regulation.

Now it means smaller gov't for things conservative disagree with (but bigger for everything else), personal responsibility for those who they don't like (but jump in there for those people who have over borrowed on home loans as well as sending out cash and telling people to spend it like drunken sailors rather than using it to eliminate debt) and limited regulation of conservatives but no problem insinuating religion and personal beliefs into gov't and regulating others who are wrong. Then there is the ongoing nation building exercise which if Clinton were behind the "conservatives" would be railing against. :rolleyes:

Mind you, the Liberals are just as bad in their own right.

For both groups it really always has and always will be about obtaining and retaining power.
 
regarding McCain:

just as pro-2nd amendment people are supporting him now even though he is clearly anti-gun,
Click to expand...

That is funny, did the GOA give that line out to be repeated?

The guy is no conservative but the only things I see him as better on that Obama are most certainly guns, where he is solidly with ONE MINOR EXCEPTION THAT IN ITSELF IS DEBATABLE, and possibly national security where Obama is simply helplessly naive.
 
McCain-Feingold was certainly liberal but it was not anti gun, it was anti free speech. The NRA and such are pissed over its implications for them but one cannot honestly argue it is "anti gun" without looking like they understand nothing of the issue.
 
GoSlash:

Please explain how the government (Republicans mostly) sticking its paternalistic we-know-more-than-you nose into the private affairs of Michael Schiavo when making life and death decisions for his brain-dead wife is conservative.

Thanks,

Kowboy
 
In the Terry Schiavo case, a Conservative would say that as a person-which she was-she was entitled to the full protection of the law.
 
In the Terry Schiavo case, a Conservative would say that as a person-which she was-she was entitled to the full protection of the law.
Click to expand...
Or that as her husband and designated health care proxy by law he was allowed to make any pertinent decisions regarding his wife, especially after she was brain dead.
 
The law also recognizes that designated proxies-spouses, parents, e.g. are often unfit to carry out their duties, do not have the best interests of the
person they are the proxy for in mind.
 
Please explain how the government (Republicans mostly) sticking its paternalistic we-know-more-than-you nose into the private affairs of Michael Schiavo when making life and death decisions for his brain-dead wife is conservative.
Click to expand...
Not sure why that was directed at me. Judging by your tone, I feel the same way you do about the Schiavo case.
 
The law also recognizes that designated proxies-spouses, parents, e.g. are often unfit to carry out their duties, do not have the best interests of the
person they are the proxy for in mind.
Click to expand...

But the burden of proof for such remains with the state. Unless clearly compelling evidence can be presented to the contrary the proxy should have the final word with regards to care.

Schiavo was a perfect example of the hijacking of traditional conservative ideals, minimal gov't involvement in private affairs, by the religious right. Their approach of "life at all costs" was what drove the fight for so long irrespective of the rights of the patient, who had by default made her husband her proxy, or the husband. Both Dems and Reps will toss out their supposed ideals when it is in their interest and this was a perfect example. An honest traditional conservative would have sided with the health care proxy given the lack of significantly compelling evidence to the contrary along with the condition of the patient in question. That is not what happened though. Even a "conservative" has no problem wielding the hammer of governmental interference as long as it is interference they agree with.
 
The law also recognizes that designated proxies-spouses, parents, e.g. are often unfit to carry out their duties, do not have the best interests of the
person they are the proxy for in mind.
Click to expand...
But the burden of proof for such remains with the state. Unless clearly compelling evidence can be presented to the contrary the proxy should have the final word with regards to care.
Click to expand...

That isn't actually how it works. If I recall correctly, TS's ex-husband was her legal guardian. The burden rests on those challenging the choice of guardian. In TS's case, that burden would rest on her parents.

The Schiavo case isn't a good one for highlighting a libertarian principle, since either outcome would in part be an exercise of state power. A court having given the ex-husband the powers of a guardian and enforcing his decision to stop feeding TS is an exercise of state authority.

Schiavo was a perfect example of the hijacking of traditional conservative ideals, minimal gov't involvement in private affairs, by the religious right. Their approach of "life at all costs" was what drove the fight for so long irrespective of the rights of the patient, who had by default made her husband her proxy, or the husband. Both Dems and Reps will toss out their supposed ideals when it is in their interest and this was a perfect example. An honest traditional conservative would have sided with the health care proxy ...
Click to expand...

An honest traditional conservative can see the argument of a family who believes that their daughter is damaged but living, and doesn't want to see their daughter deprived of food until dead.

I am not convinced as to which answer was correct in that case, but it strikes me as the sort of case that could be difficult even if we knew all the relevant facts, which we don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top