Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 101
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?Page 5 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Every state, including the ones mentioned in that report, has lots of good lawyers to draft and review legislation like that. Mr. Norden knows that any law which did much to chill the right to vote--which the Supreme Court considers as fundamental as any civil right we have--would probably be unconstitutional. If the liberals who are the sole keepers of our moral flame are outraged by those laws, they can challenge them in court.


I thought you wanted less government not more government issuing bullshyte registrationb cards.
 NonamousDog
Joined: 4/20/2011
Msg: 102
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 3:17:01 PM
If you've already accepted bullshyte drivers licenses, bullshyte social security cards(which were never intended to be ID), and all the other bullshyte paperwork which government requires of us, whats one more? It all part of the same scam isn't it?

You liberals should love voter ID cards for just that reason, I would think. More government has to be better according to you doesn't it?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 103
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 3:25:55 PM

If you've already accepted bullshyte drivers licenses, bullshyte social security cards(which were never intended to be ID), and all the other bullshyte paperwork which government requires of us, whats one more? It all part of the same scam isn't it?


LOL...and there's the rub...most states already require ID...but, they will accept these "normal" proofs of ID you've cited...but, the bullshyte photo ID required by the evangelical wingnut conservative right is un-necessary waste...except in the sense that it is gerrymandering away the elderly, young, and minority voters...which is exactly the purpose...it's not about making sure some illegal alien is not voting...frankly, disenfranchising millions of voters while adding redundant government to the mix is a sad enditment of the GOP

Add to edit:


evangelical wingnut conservatives plugged my ears


It usually doesn't take that long for a conservative to plug his/her ears...it usually happens the moment a democrat opens his mouth


evangelical wingnut conservatives plugged my ears


Same thing happens to me when I ee someone describe a liberal as a socialist marxist communist that is out to take away the wealth of a person and redistribute it to a Roswell alien
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 104
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 3:39:58 PM
^^^^

So did you win the argument? I can't tell. evangelical wingnut conservatives plugged my ears. I think there was something about aliens also. That’s the Roswell ones right? Those Roswell aliens think they are morally superior to us lowly human meat puppets.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 105
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 4:42:31 PM


had forgotten how easily the 13th amendment was adopted by the states after the Civil War


There you go, talking all that constitution stuff. I don't even know what that amendment says, but isn't it obvious it has nothing to do with morality?


That's a surprise since you are the one bringing the constitution up every time that you can't back up an argument with the facts.

Just to remind you that the 13th amendment abolishing slavery had a lot to do with morality.

I was just commenting on your statement that said: "When changed times have called for improvements, we've always been able to make them through amendments." I would just add that sometimes it takes a lot of convincing for some people to be willing to change, like losing a civil war.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 106
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 6:03:20 PM
That's a surprise since you are the one bringing the constitution up every time that you can't back up an argument with the facts.


I'm glad you know what 13th Amendment says. Now I do, too. But I'm surprised you brought it up--you sound like you don't have much use for the Constitution. Maybe you think it should support something you favor, and resent that it doesn't.

You seem to be saying amendments aren't enough. I wonder what alternative you'd suggest, considering the inconvenient fact that the Constitution is law. Ignoring that law when it doesn't suit your moral views, maybe? If so, you would have plenty of company.


It usually doesn't take that long for a conservative to plug his/her ears...it usually happens the moment a democrat opens his mouth


That's because far too often what comes out is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury--signifying nothing."
 timetogo3223
Joined: 9/29/2011
Msg: 107
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 6:21:29 PM

It usually doesn't take that long for a conservative to plug his/her ears...it usually happens the moment a democrat opens his mouth


O blessed silence! Will it ever happen that a democrat observes silence? Will a democrat ever shut his mouth?

Even with my ears plugged, the sing-song monotone of the Teleprompter-in-Chief fills my head to the point of explosion. The man never shuts up. Never. But is hard to defend a point of view anchored in nothing and that promotes endless division by class and race and sex, so I suppose that teleprompter has to be going non-stop. Tell the Big Lie. Tell it often enough.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 108
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 6:30:24 PM
Ok, someone needs to explain the morality of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJAMXXbiskY&feature=player_embedded

It's lost on me. So, If I had more than 7 days’ worth of food, some missing fingers, and a little home protection it's off to international prison?

Wow, glad they didn't mention posting in a forum....

So, maybe morality and the Constitution and liberal and conservative would be related.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 109
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 7:25:49 PM

Even with my ears plugged, the sing-song monotone of the Teleprompter-in-Chief fills my head to the point of explosion. The man never shuts up. Never. But is hard to defend a point of view anchored in nothing and that promotes endless division by class and race and sex, so I suppose that teleprompter has to be going non-stop. Tell the Big Lie. Tell it often enough.


So much for staying on topic...of course dayum near all of us knew this is your modis operandi.


you sound like you don't have much use for the Constitution


Funny, I never would have thought that...but, I do think that some really like to interpret the constitution any which way suites their purposes...and like to deride or applaud SC decisions based on how those decisions resemble their views....frankly, people like this just seem so hypocritical to me...almost immoral.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 110
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 8:23:57 PM
So where are we on the morally superior aspect that this thread was meant to discuss?

Was it the constitutionally correct, making judgements on abortions, slavery and voting rights, with exploding heads and aspersions thrown in.

Or the liberals who in answer to the negative comments, answered in kind and supplied facts as opposed to innuendo.

Frankly I would say we have a winner, the OP, who only wished to stir the shit, and his minions with their "oh yeah" and "BS" and other highly intelligent comments.

Well from my POV, I admit I was wrong, wrong to think this would lead to anything but a bashfest, and hence should have avoided it like the plague.

So, I will bow out and allow the obviuosly conservative man in the sky people to win, based on my non-participation.

Buh-bye
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 111
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 8:48:18 PM

and like to deride or applaud SC decisions based on how those decisions resemble their views


That's right. Here's a big surprise for you--people who understand the law do that all the time on blogs, in law reviews, books, etc. So do the judges in any appellate court decision that isn't unanimous--which is most of them, and in the case of the Supreme Court, almost all of them.


I do think that some really like to interpret the constitution any which way suites their purposes


I guess you're referring to leftists, who do that constantly, trying to make the Constitution say whatever they think it needs to say to support the latest "right" they've cooked up. The dozens of leftist lawyers who donated their time to creating constitutional rights for the war criminals held at Guantanamo are just one example.

And in a couple cases, the Supreme Court, which traditionally has been very careful to stay out of foreign affairs in wartime, ignored both President Bush and Congress to side with these people. Of course, never in this country's history had war criminals held outside U.S. jurisdiction had ANY constitutional rights, as the Court had made clear in earlier decisions on this issue. But details, details.

The commander of the base even had to kick several of these lawyers out, because they were helping their jihadist clients fake abuse by the soldiers; drawing them maps of the base showing where the gun towers were; giving them faked, full-color propaganda brochures depicting their pals killing U.S. troops, to keep their morale up while in stir; helping them communicate with each other and with people outside--and doing other similar things.

A couple of the lawyers were even charged with federal crimes, but they were never prosecuted very seriously. Several others now work in Mr. Obama's Justice Dept., where they offer their (strictly objective) advice on detainee affairs. If these people had their way, U.S. troops would have to read every terrorist his Miranda rights. In some cases, they already have to do that. How very fair, noble, and moral.

So--you can be sure I will take your notions of what is or isn't a moral or hypocritical way to interpret the Constitution for all they are worth.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 112
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 9:04:42 PM
no really. I don't care which side of the fence you are on.


What is the morality in the assertion that you can be classified a terrorist in this country for having more than 7 days’ worth of food.

In my opinion this is the entire point behind what today is considered the conservative republican view of limited government and why liberalism with the 'feelings hurt' approach is so completely in opposition. My view of conservative is selfish. The self-preservation type of selfish which means I do not want to live someone else’s view of how my life should be. My view of liberal is that people are valued less than society and should be controlled to benefit society.

These are my interpretations and not based on indoctrination but from how I see the world. The question of morality has almost no meaning for me in this case because I cannot comprehend how anyone, living in our country today, could possibly agree that it would be morally correct to imprison a citizen without due process in a foreign country for meeting the criteria listed in the video.

In that sense I can't see it possible that Irish, dk, Icemen, match, igor, and even lyingcheat wouldn't stand up and say FU to the government that would accept that as legitimate regardless of political party or personal belief. Not to discount others but come on … you guys are seriously obstante and polarized. Despite that, would any of you agree to literally imprison citizens without due process for the benefit of security.

Maybe that’s just me.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 113
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 9:32:13 PM
Aries, here's an article on what Rand Paul is opposing:

http://tinyurl.com/d9onush

You may be disappointed at how the vote is trending party affiliation wise, but the President is at least threatening to veto it. We will see, I guess.
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 114
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/1/2011 6:00:56 AM

wrong to think this would lead to anything but a bashfest, and hence should have avoided it like the plague.


And exactly how is this thread any different from every other one in the Politics category? Mutually bashing from both sides on every topic. Same old sh!t, different title.
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 115
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/1/2011 6:56:05 AM
And while people are trying to prove each other wrong ... making emotional arguments instead of reasoned... without understanding if their own perspectives are correct within themselves.... Rome is burning.

.... the US is on the verge of sliding into the abyss.

Perhaps it is like playing tic-tac-toe in the movie War Games. It is a game that just cannot be won.

What then is the alternative?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 116
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/1/2011 8:02:36 AM


If it's an individual right, it matters little whether an international treaty, federal law, state law, or municipal ordinance infringes on it.


Not so. States have inherent authority to make laws and policies about all sorts of things.


Now there you go again applying legal interpretation to an ethics question. The original premise was that providing maximum individual rights is morally superior. You've tried to defend the constitution's emphasis on states rights in that context, and I've asserted that to the individual it doesn't matter which external authority limits those individual rights, they're still limited.

You may be right about who has legal authority to do what. That's not the point. The point is that as individual, it doesn't MATTER who else limits my individual rights - they're still limited.

I've made clear that I think some individual rights SHOULD be limited, and that I don't support the original premise. You've tried to assert that somehow the constitution's emphasis on states rights assures more individual rights. But it doesn't. It just dictates who gets to limit an individual's rights, not that they'll have more of them.


Today, thanks to modern labor and safety regulations, miners have far more individual freedom.


Yes, in some ways. But at one time, the prevailing view was just the opposite


...which supports my assertion that central planning does NOT inherently mean less individual rights. It just depends on the nature of that planning.


This masterwork of legal sleight-of-hand says that for purposes of the Clean Air Act, CO2--you know, that poison gas we exhale all the time, the stuff that puts the fizz in our Dr. Pepper--is a "pollutant."


So by your reasoning the Corps should not be allowed to build dams and levies and other flood control projects, as after all, since water is such a natural and essential element, how could it ever be bad if too much of it is in one place at one time?



I understand your frustration. It is hard to have a serious discussion when the other side wants to define both terms.


It seems most of this last page has been full of people telling the other side what the other side thinks. How about we all focus on expressing what WE think, and challenge others based on what they SAY, not all sorts of motives and positions you choose to assign to them?


and like to deride or applaud SC decisions based on how those decisions resemble their views


That's right. Here's a big surprise for you--people who understand the law do that all the time on blogs, in law reviews, books, etc. So do the judges in any appellate court decision that isn't unanimous--which is most of them, and in the case of the Supreme Court, almost all of them.


I do think that some really like to interpret the constitution any which way suites their purposes


I guess you're referring to leftists,


Wow. In one breath you defend the practice of questioning legal interpretations and illustrate how all sorts of important and unimportant folks do it all the time, and then you leap straight into asserting that only leftists try to interpret the constitution to suit their purposes? I guess it must have been a leftist plot to identify corporations as "persons" then....

You should have just stuck with your first statement.


And while people are trying to prove each other wrong ... making emotional arguments instead of reasoned... without understanding if their own perspectives are correct within themselves.... Rome is burning.

.... the US is on the verge of sliding into the abyss.

Perhaps it is like playing tic-tac-toe in the movie War Games. It is a game that just cannot be won.

What then is the alternative?


And that really is the most pertinent question.

We really do seem to be hovering on the verge of collapse while we spend much more energy trying to bring each other down than on addressing the many real problems we face.

To heck with moral superiority of liberals vs conservatives. Could we not agree that it's morally superior to actually take action on the many urgent problems of the day rather than make our highest priority defeating whatever the other side proposes simply because it was the other side that proposed it?

In my lifetime both Republicans and Democrats have done good things and bad things. When I was younger they seemed far better able to acknowledge their philosophical differences while still forging important legislation to keep us moving forward. Sometimes taxes went up, sometimes they went down. Some much needed government controls and programs were put in place, some overly intrusive proposals were defeated.

Today it seems we can't make ANY decisions. It's like we're fighting over the steering wheel while the bus is headed straight for a tree. It doesn't matter as much whether we go left of right of the tree as it does that we MISS the tree.

It's looking more and more like we're just going to have to hit that tree, and hope there are enough survivors to learn from our folly and do a better job of driving in the future. Or maybe we just have to go back to learning to crawl, then walk, and start from scratch completely.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 117
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/1/2011 8:21:09 AM
But I'm surprised you brought it up--you sound like you don't have much use for the Constitution.


It looks as if you don't hear that well. Where in my post says I don't have much use for the Constitution? Readings your posts I know that you like to define both terms of the discussion. Now I know that, in your head at least, you like to make up sh.t and slap it in the forum to see if it will stick. Man, Rush Limbaugh has nothing on you when it comes to inventing an opponent to rant against it.

Just look at this:


Maybe you think it should support something you favor, and resent that it doesn't.


Does that mean that you want to avoid defending the morality of the conservatives' right to own or exploit other human beings? Maybe you thought that you could deflect by making up an interpretation that is very much at odds with what I said.


You seem to be saying amendments aren't enough.


You are certainly giving us the impression that you have a problem understanding what you read. I never said that amendments aren't enough, and I didn't attack the Constitution. In your head you would like to believe it so you can attack me for that, but what I said is very different.

Responding to your spurious defense of the conservative's morality and the insipid and fraudulent manner of your argument, insinuating that conservatives recognize when change is necessary, as in:


When changed times have called for improvements, we've always been able to make them through amendments.


I reminded you that the conservatives, holding fast to their beliefs, didn't see anything wrong with the practice of owning slaves. So much so, that they were willing to destroy the nation in order for them to maintain their right, as their bible said, to own other human beings.

I hope that the next amendment, if any, doesn't require such destruction and loss of life before the conservatives hear the calling of the times.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/2/2011 7:57:01 PM
Ok, now so my head doesn't explode...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?299155-Book-Toward-Soviet-America-(1932)-Create-a-National-Department-of-Education!


Selected Quote from the Book:

=====
Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are the following;

The schools, colleges, and universities will be coordinated and grouped under the National Department of Education and its state and local branches. The studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeoisie (middle class) ideology. The students will be taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism, and the general ethics of the new socialist society


Well, fortunately some concessions were granted on the National Defense Bill that used words to try to make it clear that "American citizens" are not to be held indefinitely. I still do not think the language should exist at all.

But now I find this "debarment of education" as being originally conceived by the American Communist party and support by the Newt of newts... WTF...

So, to continue on the path towards massively large and unstable government bent on dumbing down society and maintaining useful idiots... vote newt? WTF

And why does all of main stream media refuse to acknowledge that Ron Paul exists?

Morality and Liberal or Conservative does have meaning. The problem is, “who does it have meaning for?”

A bit long (30min) but WTF Newt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWPz1Qdq1uI

:(
 timetogo3223
Joined: 9/29/2011
Msg: 119
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 2:43:23 AM
bigblad...




Even with my ears plugged, the sing-song monotone of the Teleprompter-in-Chief fills my head to the point of explosion. The man never shuts up. Never. But is hard to defend a point of view anchored in nothing and that promotes endless division by class and race and sex, so I suppose that teleprompter has to be going non-stop. Tell the Big Lie. Tell it often enough.


So much for staying on topic...of course dayum near all of us knew this is your modis operandi.


A bit off topic in that personal dig, don't you think? Now if I were you I'd be running to snitch, but that is what many liberals and progressives due, only because they think themselves morally superior but find no groundswell of support. Except with like-minded and ensconced drones running the machine of government.



you sound like you don't have much use for the Constitution


Funny, I never would have thought that...but, I do think that some really like to interpret the constitution any which way suites their purposes...and like to deride or applaud SC decisions based on how those decisions resemble their views....frankly, people like this just seem so hypocritical to me...almost immoral.


Many lib-progs keep their copy of the Constitution on a file in their computer, figuratively speaking, and adjust the wording to fit their desires. It's a "living, breathing" document, after all, and subject to the moral correctness of the emotions of many lib-progs. Don't like the Second Amendment? No problem. (Delete). That First Amendment should only apply to like-minded "enlightened" lib-progs, such as ourselves. (Insert update language here). Get that "fairness doctrine" to shut down what we don't like. Ain't foolin' nobody nohow none of use guys. Fair is fair, but only if you say in your hissy fits of moral superiority.
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 2:52:19 AM
To anybody reading this thread who is not on crack, heroin, drunk, or otherwise impaired, the answer to the question should be self-evident and obvious.

Neither.

signed,
Somebody who's called a neo-nazi, neo-con, commie pinko fag, marxist and any other political pejoritive you can think of, with equal frequency.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 121
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 6:29:45 AM
Ditto, notgorshkovagain.

Again, neither Liberalism or Conservatism is even remotely firmly defined enough to make ANY sort of factual or functional judgments. As many anticipated, this thread has devolved rapidly into yet another bashing fest.

The only small thing I will put in, which needs to be said in all such fests, is that when the person DEFINING a thing is the person who is bashing it, that comes under the heading of "straw men arguments." This is a favorite tactic used by the more ill-intentioned politicians we have to suffer.

You prove ABSOLUTELY NOTHING by defining what you oppose, as being inherently defective, and then pointing and saying "look! It's defective."
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 122
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 7:22:09 AM

Liberals (the term is ironic) want to impose whatever social policies they think are bright and beautiful on everyone, and they don't much care if the Constitution authorizes their wonderful schemes.

/snip/

....leftists, who do that constantly, trying to make the Constitution say whatever they think it needs to say to support the latest "right" they've cooked up.



Many lib-progs keep their copy of the Constitution on a file in their computer, figuratively speaking, and adjust the wording to fit their desires. It's a "living, breathing" document, after all, and subject to the moral correctness of the emotions of many lib-progs.


Lib-prog lefties like Sarah Palin for instance?


Sarah Palin: American Law Should Be 'Based On The God Of The Bible And The Ten Commandments'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/sarah-palin-american-law_n_569922.html

The Palin Principle – Bible trumps Constitution
http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/05/10/the-palin-principle-bible-trumps-constitution/

Sarah Palin Gets The 2nd Amendment And Paul Revere’s Ride Wrong
http://www.politicususa.com/en/sarah-palin-paul-revere

Sarah Palin Says Only Americans Worthy of Constitutional 'Rights'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3fm_IQ5Hco&feature=related

Sarah Palin Rewrites Constitution
http://winnandtonic.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/sarah-palin-rewrites-constitution-3rd-grader-pleased/

And for those who enjoy horror...
Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 10:15:36 AM
Good quote on morality and law.

The morality of the people, or the immorality of the people, can be reflected in the law but the law never can change the morality of the people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=w4vnCwM9cIg#t=234s
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 124
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 10:55:27 AM
I've asserted that to the individual it doesn't matter which external authority limits those individual rights, they're still limited.


Most of our laws are based on morality. Individual liberty is not only a moral issue, but also a legal one. Whether a person's liberty is being restricted legitimately and reasonably is always important to that person. I don't expect to be allowed to plant a rose bush in my neighbor's yard, but I expect I can plant one in my own.


and then you leap straight into asserting that only leftists try to interpret the constitution to suit their purposes? I guess it must have been a leftist plot to identify corporations as "persons" then....


I don't know what evidence there is, if any, that the guiding lights behind the 14th Amendment meant persons to include corporations. But a whole century's worth of decisions applying various parts of the Bill of Rights to the states--when they had applied only to the federal government--is probably based on a wrong interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Should we, then, undo all that now, and let a state once again have the right to establish its own official religion, for example?

It isn't only people who are usually considered liberals who have played fast and loose with the Constitution. But they have done the lion's share of it, and during the past 75 years, almost all of it. That effort has made possible the massive and largely illegitimate central government which is steadily crushing our freedoms, our prosperity, and even our future as a free country.


When I was younger they seemed far better able to acknowledge their philosophical differences while still forging important legislation to keep us moving forward.


Yes--let's have still more laws and an even larger federal government. How can anyone doubt that's the solution? The Constitution gives the President a lot of individual power to act fast to protect the country from foreign threats. But that is the exception. In domestic matters, it purposely designs the U.S. government to be self-limiting. It gives each branch only given certain limited powers, and it intentionally pits each one against the others.

It is *supposed* to be hard for Washington to get things done. A democratic republic like ours relies on debate and contending wills, all the more so when very important issues are involved. Let the best arguments win. Except in our national defense, we shouldn't try to bridge our differences and all pull together. After all, we are not Roman galley slaves, but free people.

Placing the nation above our individual wills and freedoms may sound stirring, but that idea is literally un-American. It's well suited, though, to a totalitarian state like Fascist Italy under Mussolini. It's no accident that in the 1920's and 1930's, many progressives and future New Dealers greatly admired him as a man who got things done--who "made the trains run on time."

@ Imported:
It looks as if you don't hear that well. Where in my post says I don't have much use for the Constitution?


I hear very well. And you don't have to say that outright--it's clear enough.


You are certainly giving us the impression that you have a problem understanding what you read.


Unless you're using the royal we, speak for yourself. It's too bad you take such a sour, personal tone. People who do that usually are trying to make up in heat what they lack in light.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 125
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 11:58:52 AM
It is a widely accepted idea that societies proclaim their moral values by the holidays and celebrations that they hold.

What superior moral values are the conservatives proclaiming by holding Civil War celebrations such as the "Secession Gala"? Is that the way they choose to show us how Conservatism is morally superior?


Civil War, 150 Years Later, Still Divides Our Nation
Dec 31, 2010 – 10:16 PM
Laura Parker, Contributor

MANASSAS, Va. – When National Park Service rangers fired a New Year's cannon shot at this Civil War battleground to hail the arrival of 2011, they also ushered in the start of a four-year commemoration of the war's 150th anniversary.

The events include a multitude of battle re-enactments, lecture series, readings, concerts and plays that will be held on the battle fields tended to by the Park Service and in private estates from the shores of the Gulf of Mexico to New York.

But the slate of commemorations is also fraught with political peril. Deep divisions over why the war was fought persist, especially in the South. The debate still roils over slavery's role as the principle cause of the war. The first commemoration, a private "secession gala" organized by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Charleston on Dec. 20, did not signal an auspicious start to the upcoming calendar of events.

The date marked the 150th anniversary of the day South Carolina became the first of 11 states to secede. Inside the ballroom, elected officials and others in period costume celebrated the courage of their fore-bearers to stand up for their state's right to leave the Union. Outside, on the sidewalk, the NAACP led 100 demonstrators who viewed the event as a celebration of a treasonous act against the federal government in order to protect the institution of slavery.



http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/31/2011-begins-commemoration-of-150th-anniversary-of-the-civil-war/

The complete article is found at link above.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?