Conservatives

[touchfaith]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought about this more and being a conservative does not mean refraining from passing any restrictions on personnal behavior like abortion, gay marriage or the ones mentioned within the thread. What it means is a belief that laws should reflect the will and beliefs of the people they govern and that they should be decided at the lowest level of government possible. In most cases this is the state level but with issue like education the local level would apply.

Thus on say abortion a true conservative does not oppose roe v. wade simply because it made abortion legal but because the judicial branch thrawted the will of the people who had decided at a state level that abortion was not legal. Hopefully it will someday be overturned so that states like NY or CA can have it legal and states such Kansas and Alabama can restrict it.

judicial activism: conservatives are against judges determining the law on important social issues instead of letting the people themselves decide.

So to go back to the question of drugs, gambling and prostitution I believe that all of these are best decided at the state level and as a conservative I respect laws like medical marijuana even though I may be personally against them because it was decided by the people of CA.

Some on here like to constantly call conservatives hypocritical yet while they love a law like medical marijuana they are quick to hope that other measures also passed by the populace, like definition of marriage acts or restrictions on abortion are struck down by judges who for the most part do not have to answer to the people they serve.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sorry, we tried it your way, but your conservatives where not able to protect even basic human rights.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]


Sorry, we tried it your way, but your conservatives where not able to protect even basic human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well hoss, like it or not we are about to try it again.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple things to keep in mind:
1) The definitions were meant to show a contrast, so including things like "liberals support the [strict separation of the] 3 branches of gov't" implies that conservatives don't.

[/ QUOTE ] They don't --- in, obviously, the liberals' opinion! (Example: The conservatives' drive to have the presidency invested de facto with war powers the likes of which would make the hair stand on the heads of the framers! Talk about strict interpretationists!...)

But the point is that conservatives should, of course, be allowed to claim otherwise in their definition of their ideology.

[ QUOTE ]
2) The debate could very well have been about what size the gov't should be, in which case, the additional characteristics would be unnecessary and time-wasting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seeing what the definition of "conservative" was, respectively, at the debate that Felix watched, you just might be right. (link to OP) Nonetheless, a close reading of the two definitons renders them as created by the same person - and a conservative to boot. (Example: Liberals are not against "the free market being allowed to work", as the conservatives' definition implies. See previous remark about being alloed to formulate one's own definition of one's own ideology.)

I have now come to believe that there is fuzziness in how Felix Nietsche transmits to us the information abt that debate he watched a long time ago. (It's called memory.)

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought about this more and being a conservative does not mean refraining from passing any restrictions on personnal behavior like abortion, gay marriage or the ones mentioned within the thread. What it means is a belief that laws should reflect the will and beliefs of the people they govern and that they should be decided at the lowest level of government possible. In most cases this is the state level but with issue like education the local level would apply.

Thus on say abortion a true conservative does not oppose roe v. wade simply because it made abortion legal but because the judicial branch thrawted the will of the people who had decided at a state level that abortion was not legal. Hopefully it will someday be overturned so that states like NY or CA can have it legal and states such Kansas and Alabama can restrict it.

judicial activism: conservatives are against judges determining the law on important social issues instead of letting the people themselves decide.

So to go back to the question of drugs, gambling and prostitution I believe that all of these are best decided at the state level and as a conservative I respect laws like medical marijuana even though I may be personally against them because it was decided by the people of CA.

Some on here like to constantly call conservatives hypocritical yet while they love a law like medical marijuana they are quick to hope that other measures also passed by the populace, like definition of marriage acts or restrictions on abortion are struck down by judges who for the most part do not have to answer to the people they serve.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sorry, we tried it your way, but your conservatives where not able to protect even basic human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

A very common mistake, made by people across the political spectrum, is that a repeal of a current law, and/or a return to a previous law, will result in the exactly the same previous society.

It will not. In the case of liberal laws, this is usually because the social trend was already going in the direction of whatever law was passed to address the previous condition.

Things like the war on poverty, and consumer products protections, were designed to address problems that were *already* on the decline. So, for example, removing seat-belt requirements from auto safety regulations would results in VERY VERY few cars being produced without seatbelts, if any. Because the world is different now.

natedogg