"olddog" wrote in news:mt3Nk.94707$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
I would look into who finances this site. MoveOn.org and similar groups have funded several "non-partisan" orgs that actually are Obama shills. I note this site does NOT list anything about itself,it's origins,etc.
Even Factcheck.org has been shown to be biased WRT gun rights.
Social conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of abortion, gun rights, and Supreme Court nominations. The rest is just noise.
Economic conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of free trade and tax cuts (Republicans believe tax cuts can cure cancer and alleviate bee-bites). The rest is just noise.
In one poll I saw, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans support McCain than Democrats do Obama. No Republican is going to base his vote solely on torture, immigration reform, the war, or any of the almost (to them) insignificant issues.
What about if you're a "weak" economic conservative (that is, in favor of small government and low taxes, along with small government and reduced spending, but not necessarily full scale deregulation and aren't necessarily opposed to progressive income taxes) but are opposed to the religious right?
And why *wouldn't* someone base their vote on the war, when it is one of the largest challenges facing us today?
nate
Because they're there, lad, and there's no one else. Just us.
You keep saying that, but you haven't given an example of how Bush has violated the Constitution.
If you hold, as I suspect, that the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo is an example, I suggest you and others who hold similar beliefs are wrong.
The prisoners at Gitmo are not criminals. As such, they are entitled to NONE of the Constitutional protections afforded by the Constitutions (i.e., "In all criminal proceedings..."). They are unlawful enemy combatants. Here are some interesting facts about unlawful enemy combatants:
Now many on the left WANT UECs treated as criminals. That is, the folks at Gitmo, according to many on the left, should get lawyers, speedy trials, etc. This is like saying cancer victims should be treated as criminals, or members of a junior high soccer team, or vegetarians. UECs are not criminals and they don't get treated like criminals.
By your standards the founding fathers were UECs then. People defending their own land from oppression (as they see it.)
I also submit warrantless wiretapping and Cheney's "unique" interpretation of the status of the Vice Presidency as examples of blatant disregard for the rule of law. The scary thing is that I suspect it will take years if not decades to discover just what all this administration has done that we don't know about yet.
nate
I don't think he reversed himself. His position is (paraphrasing) "Local communities should have a right to tailor laws to fit their own circumstances."
The plain meaning of his position is that, while the 2nd Amendment provides a right to keep and bear arms, a city should have a right to restrict - or even eliminate - guns due to a compelling social need.
As a putative constitutional law expert, he should know that impinging on a constitutional right carries a high burden. It doesn't matter if the majority in a city doesn't like Jehovah Witnesses - the city can't ban the church. While the constitution says the accused should have access to a lawyer, a state can't prohibit legal representation to child molesters just because it's a compelling social goal to do whatever's necessary to get them off the street.
Not even remotely really because the Geneva Conventions were a couple hundred years or so from being ratified.
A "conservative" not opposed to progressive income taxes? A "conservative" not opposed to deregulation? There is no such critter.
Oh, we admit some regulation is necessary so the economic system can function, but banning bug-bombs in New York City because some people ignore the warnings? Banning Halon as a fire suppressant because of a threat to the Ozone layer? Banning DDT? Emptying mental institutions? Liberal policies (i.e., most regulations) often fail. And when they fail, they fail catastrophically; innocent lives are lost, often in great numbers.
Economic conservatives (weak, strong, or otherwise) are indifferent - in the main - to the agenda of social conservatives.
Conservatives are not opposed to ALL growth in government. We favor, for example, a larger military, a larger border patrol, and larger prisons. Some even support chaining miscreants to the wall. Upside down.
A couple of reasons: Because the war in Iraq should be a non-issue in this election. It's virtually over. (The left, however, wants a second bite at the apple by making the war germane. Just like they want a third try at defeating Bush.)
Another reason is that neither social conservatives nor economic conservatives have a dog in the fight; they're indifferent to the war. Almost. Economic conservatives see a down-stream benefit from free trade, but new markets or cheaper raw materials are almost over the horizon and not immediately important. Social conservatives see a slim possibility of bringing Mother Church to the heathens. But neither of these reasons is compelling.
It's up to us neoconservatives to thread the gap between the two to foster American hegemony and world domination.
As to your original point about economic conservatives being opposed to the religious right - there is a tension. But those who feel stronger about economics are willing to put up with the Bible-thumpers because they need their support. Likewise, the strongly religious can easily accommodate the one-worlders and corporate masters because free trade doesn't really affect God. All in all, it's a convenient marriage; loveless, but nevertheless successful.
Contrast that with the conglomeration of interests in the Democrat party. Environmentalists are opposed to drilling in ANWAR but the unions are in favor. Civil rights leaders don't much like women getting preferences and feminists don't like racial quotas. The Democrats are a family, an often dysfunctional family.
Yep. But it's not my standard. The United States Supreme Court coined the phrase "unlawful enemy combatant." How to deal with spys and the like captured on the battlefield has been worked out over thousands of years of military conflict and belligerents have converged, through countless trial-and-error methodologies, on the most practical solution. It's called the Black Flag.
The first intercepts of enemy electronic communications took place during the Second War of Independence when both the Union and Confederacy tapped the opposing side's telegraph lines. In every war since, reading the enemy's mail, so to speak, has been an accepted and necessary practice.
Not only enemies, but potential enemies. We were working on, and broke, Japanese codes long before they attacked Pearl Harbor. We had the diplomatic code cracked by December 7th, 1941. Had we had equal success with the Japanese naval code, we could have averted disaster.
Warrants are authorized by the 4th Amendment, but the president's authority to wage war is covered by Article II of the same constitution. The courts have unanimously said, over the centuries, that the president's war-making responsibility trumps the 4th Amendment.
As for Cheney, there's an interesting Op-Ed in today's NY Times on the constitutional role of the Vice President.
Nate Nagel wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news5.newsguy.com:
It might help if they had an ACCURATE idea of what the war was about and it's real state at the present. Nate has based his on inaccuracy and media propaganda.(that explains a lot..)
Nate,who do you believe is going to enlarge government the LEAST? Obama already has advanced plans to greatly enlarge the government and to usurp the Constitution.
you -say- you are a "conservative",but all your points demonstrate you are a Liberal.
Nate Nagel wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news5.newsguy.com:
it all depends on who wins and gets to write the history.
you keep bringing out this "moral equivalence" nonsense.
and you would be wrong.
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman- snipped-for-privacy@70-3-168-216.area.spcsdns.net:
regardless,if they had been caught by the British,they would have been hanged as traitors.(as they were British citizens revolting against their own gov't)
They risked everything to secure liberty for us.Bless them.
al-qaida and similar terrorists are NOT protecting their own countries. Many of them are foreigners from elsewhere. They are advancing their religion by force.
heck,Nate cannot even comprehend OBLs own statements on why they are at war with the West.
Based on the last two administrations, I believe the democrats would actually expand government less than another republican administration.
nate
Can you reuse liberal think, like political signs?
After the election, can you take the wire out of his supporters, and use them for something?
Yet you have not even pretended to put out an incident or two to back up your decision. What is obvious and incontrovertible is that you are doing exactly the same thing you are accusing the Bushsters of doing.
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in news:ge5pad$c3f$ snipped-for-privacy@registered.motzarella.org:
"think" should be in quotes when prefaced by liberal. They really don't think,they just "feel".
Nate Nagel wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news3.newsguy.com:
well,it's now clear you don't know the meaning of "lie",either.
Hard to have a "rational discussion" with someone if they don't know the meaning of words.
I guess, maybe you can donate it. Others can reuse it. Posted from the Free Home Improvement Forum at
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.