Liberals claim to be enraged at Romney for being a "flip-flopper." I've looked and looked, and the only issue I can find that Romney has "flipped" on is abortion.
Truly? Gee, Ann, you must not have looked all that hard.
Oh, really?
Of the top five Republican candidates for president, Romney is the only one who hasn't dumped his first wife (as well as the second, in the case of Giuliani) – except Huckabee.
I guess it all depends on the meaning of "top five."
Y'know, Ann, you'd get a lot farther with people inclined to agree with some of your views if you didn't, like, lie to them...
13 comments:
I am stunned by self proclaimed conservatives who support Romney.
He is a liberal big government nanny stater and could just as easily fit in the Democratic primary as Edwards.
He and Giuliani are both liberals and anti-constitutionalists of the first water.
Do these commentators lack any intellectual skills or do they just think we do?
"When the ax entered the forest, the trees said, 'The handle is one of us!'"
Just what is the difference between liberals and conservatives? Is it that liberals lie and conservatives don't?
Or, is it that conservative women don't dress like streetwalkers and liberal women do?
How is it that conservatism is defined? Just what standard is to be used?
If censervatism is defined by one or two issues (or even a half dozen) then it is just as shallow as liberalism. No, being conservative is much more fundamental than that.
I assume Paul you know the difference, but if you do not. I will tell what I mean by conservatism. I mean the same thing the founders did. Political conservatism.
That philosophy of government that demands a strict adherence to the constitution. All powers not specifically granted government by the constitution or its amendments, it does not have. Any laws that are in conflict with that constitution are null and void.
Social conservatism and economic conservatism can be part of either a liberal or conservative political outlook, though most often social conservatives are just another arm of political liberalism which believes in using illegitimate power of government to interfere in the private lives of others to force them into compliance with their own social, moral, or political views.
For example, the so-called Religious Right is not politically conservative, but politically liberal in that they would expand, distort, and redefine the terms of the constitution to grant power to the state, through very liberal interpretation of the constitution, to force their brand of morality on everyone.
They align with the right because they are a factor in that population to a higher degree than they would be with the left, but make no mistake, they are political liberals trading on their political power to get payback for their support.
Now, it is their right under a poitically conservative interpretation of the constitution to proseletyze and try to sway others to their views. However, the constitution prohibits their being able to compel others to their viewpoint, or at the least force them into acquiesence in their actions to that viewpoint through law.
A liberal interpretation of the constitution is another way of saying we can invent any meaning we want,even one in direct conflict with the meaning of the words, intent and tradition of the constitution.
There are very few political conservatives in the political arena. Even the Republicans who claim conservatism as their philosophical basis are not, with very few exceptions.
That is why the direction of trends regarding individual liberty in this nation never changes, no matter which party is in power. Their only real disagreement is the speed with which they can achieve a monopoly on power and how to split the spoils.
So yes, political liberals lie. They must in order to be political liberals.
Social liberals who advocate their philosophy without invention of meanings not found in the constitution do not need to lie.
Wayne Fincher is in jail today because of political liberalism and social conservatism. Both have decided that he does not have the rights under the constitution, that that document so plainly says he does. The political liberal wants a monopoly of force for the state, the social conservative has decided nobody needs a machine gun, militias are unnecessary, therefore he has determined also that Mr. Fincher did not have the rights the constitution plainly states he does. Both use force of illegitimate law to reshape the society to their liking. As you know they have to lie to do it. Because the constitution does not allow them to do so and the laws they use are repugnant to it and therefore null and void. Only force of organized arms has so far allowed them to prevail.
I fear that is all that will defeat them also. Traitors do not usually change of their own volition.
Just to mark my ground. I am extremely politically conservative. I am also a social liberal, and a mid-range economic conservative.
I don't lie, therefore I cannot be a political liberal.
My favorite is where she wonders what he will flip-morph into, a moderate or a conservative. WTF Ann?
She backs Romney, Medved wants us to vote for McCain, and various other commentators want us to unite behind one or other of these various, odious, quislings. Never thought I'd see such hogwash, but there you are, I just didn't think of it. The end will be the same. Either party gets their candidate elected, we're vomit on toast. I ain't comin' to dinner, and I damn sure ain't showing up for the dance.
Well Sean, I think we will all show up for the dance, Oklahoma style. Just for the fights outside.
I don't think we will have a choice.
Straightarrow,
Actually, your post illustrates the point that I make. Unfortunately, fundamentalism, which is essential to conservatism and to having a consistent position on anything, is virtually lost in modern American society.
I will disagree with you concerning the Founders. The problem here is that you have accepted modern society's redefined "social conservatism." From what I read and study about the Founders, they were, by and large, conservative across the board. However, they did not define social conservatism the way it is defined today. Social conservatism does include such things as liberty of the conscience. However, it does not include anything that would harm one's neighbor. (This is not "potential" harm, but actual damage to one's neighbors.)
A careful examination of the vast majority of the "religious right" does reveal that they are actually very liberal in their interpretation of certain texts (such as the Bible and the various constitutions (state and Federal)), and they engage in a biased implementation of what those texts say to do. Thus, at their core, they are not at all fundamental, and not really conservative in the sense of the Founders. The same thing applies in the economic arena as well. Economic conservatives would not buy into the idea of fiat money and "growing" an economy through the dubious means of easy credit.
The greatest difference between the era of the Founders and today is the understanding that what matters is in the heart of the individual (the character of the man). In this regard, they viewed the possession of dangerous implements in the hands of a man of good character to be no danger at all. Conversely, the most innocuous of items in the hands of a man of bad character renders everyone unsafe.
I think we would do well to quit letting others define what we are.
Sorry Paul, I don't see the disagreement you say we have. I allowed as how a social conservative could be a political conservative, with the caveat that such is not usually the case today.
It does not mean there aren't any at all. It does mean they are not identifiable as a group.
Whereas the founders were socially conservative they left the persuasion of others to their views, to the clergic or philosopher who could advise, persuade, entice or argue one to their view, but could not compel acceptance at the point of a gun with the power of law behind it. Thus they were political conservatives.
We just don't have any identifiable group today that fits that mold. The people we have today who claim to be conservatives are almost always social (as in societal mores) conservatives who are political liberals who would compel others to their views at the point of a gun.
They are not conservatives in the mold of the founders or any present day constitutional conservative.
I think perhaps you misinterpreted something I said or I didn't state it clearly enough.
Straightarrow,
This statement:
"Social conservatism and economic conservatism can be part of either a liberal or conservative political outlook, though most often social conservatives are just another arm of political liberalism which believes in using illegitimate power of government to interfere in the private lives of others to force them into compliance with their own social, moral, or political views."
I really don't think that one's social or economic point of view is "transferable" if you understand my use of the word. What we believe socially comes from what we believe about man: where man comes from, why man is here, man's purpose, man's nature, and who man (individually) is accountable to.
What we believe economically and politically should stem from the preceding "worldview" (what we believe about man). If it does not, then we have put the cart before the horse and are going to end up with an inconsistent outlook on things.
The Founders of this nation had a particular worldview that, in the main, I agree with. They believed that man was accountable to God, and they believed what God stated about man's nature was entirely true (hence the Second Amendment). What the LORD God stated about man is best summed up by the following statement:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)
The problem in modern American society is that this view is not accepted, and is in fact shunned. If Americans would once again accept even the above statement (let alone the rest of the Bible), and understand the import of the statement, they would realize how jealously they must guard their liberties. Instead, Americans have bought into a the lie of Humanism which states that man is basically good, and man's nature can be changed if only we change man's environment and what man has access to (i.e. guns).
I don't think I so much disagree with you on this, just on your approach to it.
As to the vast majority of the Religious Right: they believe in "conformity" and do not allow for "dissension" and think that anyone who disagrees with them is a danger to what they believe. In short, they are insecure in what they believe, and are so shallow as to conceive that outward assent is always an actual reflection of the heart of the man (hence their support for Bush, Huckabee, etc.). I tend to apply the following to them when they speak:
As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools. (Proverbs 26:9)
As long as she's been a public figure, she's been a moon-eyed mouthpiece for the Republicrat Party -- truth be damned. She's got a smooth tongue/pen, but it's all about being a party-liner, not a Patriot. You hit the nail on the head, David. Coulter is just another lying R trying to maintain her power by brown-nosing the establishment so they continue to grant her title and position as another poster child for their failed policies. She's like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh in that regard, on their same level of transparent and phony and highly predictable.
--AS
Paul, while I am a social liberal, and a political conservative, I am also personal conservative in that I believe in most of the ideals of character and responsibility as do you.
However, I do not believe in forcing others to declare themselves in agreement with me, so long as by their actions they cause me or mine no harm, actual harm.
Today's social conservative does not believe in freedom for others in the same proportions they claim it for themselves. That makes them political liberals. Simply, because they must defy the tenets of the constitution in order to establish the desired disparity of rights to liberty of thought and philosophy, even absent any actual harm occurring at the hand of those disagree.
To be a political conservative under our system makes it imperative to be a social liberal, no matter your personal adherence or nonadherence to religious or philosophical beliefs.
I suspect you are not a social conservative in the tradition of using force of illegitimate law to force others to your view. I suspect you are actually more like me. A social liberal who lives a personally conservative and politically conservative existence, thus allowing the most liberty of thought, action, and philosophy to all, not just yourself, in the absence of actual harm by one for another.
You stated,"The Founders of this nation had a particular worldview that, in the main, I agree with. They believed that man was accountable to God, and they believed what God stated about man's nature was entirely true (hence the Second Amendment). What the LORD God stated about man is best summed up by the following statement:......."
Which is true, in the main they were religious and expected others to be, but they were very careful to avoid the use of law in compelling others to their beliefs, hence the first amendment.
The liberal attribute of tolerance for the beliefs of another does not demand one to abandon his own, nor does it his tribute for beliefs not his own. This liberal philosophy of personal behavior toward others is not inconsistent with the conservative pursuit of his own ideals and, in fact, is required of him if he believes in our constitution. That belief neither being inconsistent with personal liberalism or religious conservatism. It is a definition of political conservatism. Though perhaps in my deficiencies a poor one.
Straightarrow,
"However, I do not believe in forcing others to declare themselves in agreement with me, so long as by their actions they cause me or mine no harm, actual harm."
Agreed. I do not believe that you must be compelled to declare yourself in agreement with me. And I will not force anyone to do so. I have several reasons for this, but the primary one is that it is a wicked sin to force someone against their conscience, even if you know they are wrong. So long as what they do does no harm to anyone, they are free to believe it and follow their beliefs -- even if it sends them to Hell.
The principle contained in the following passages are what I know to be true, and what I must answer for. (The context concerns eating meat, observing holy days and meat offered to idols.)
But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. (I Corinthians 8:12)
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.(Romans 14:5)
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:22-23)
You must answer for what you believe, and I must answer for what I believe. However, I must put forth the truth. If someone disagrees with me, so be it. Unless they can prove what they believe is true, I’m not going to change what I believe, and they are still free to believe what they want. No one answers to me, but everyone answers to Almighty God.
The difference between the Founders, who were largely Christian or Christian affected, and today’s “Christian Crowd” is the fact that the Founders knew that God judged them individually, based upon what they believed and did, not what others believed and did.
In any case, the difference between our approaches is that I approach things from a strictly Scriptural view and hold the Constitution subordinate to that. The Federal Constitution is the law of the land. As such, the LORD has commanded that we uphold it and follow it. I know from Scripture that the LORD brought this nation into existence for His reasons, and since He did, we are to work to preserve it as He allowed it to be.
In every case, I would not dream of stifling discussion or dissent as that restricts the liberty of the conscience of the individual. Besides, I enjoy a good discussion, whether or not we agree.
Post a Comment