Problem Mortgage | Loans | Loans | Loans | Article submission
Conservatism Redux [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : Conservatism Redux


TheRealLobo
06-28-2005, 10:20 AM
I have been asked to repost this. This first made the pages several years ago, and has since fallen by the wayside.

In the interest of saving some time, I hereby repost (with a few changes/additions):

With the recent influx of those wishing to "learn about Conservatives", wishing to see what the "other side thinks", or wanting to "bring about some debate", I offer the following information.

There is a large contingent of core members at FreeConservatives, and while I don't speak for all of them, many of us have been here for at least a couple of years. We've discussed many issues, and lately it seems as the same issues are being discussed over and over again as each new group of self-styled "anarchists", "leftists", those who want to know what conservatives think, and those wishing to remain label-less register and post. In the interest of saving time, I present a GENERAL consensus of what conservatives support. If you find the answer to a question you are about to post, please re-consider, or you will be likely to feel as if you are being picked on from the outset.

Regards,
TheRealLobo

1. Conservatives are as a rule, anti-abortion. Roe vs Wade is wrong, and it should be at worst, a state's decision, not the federal government's. I do not support abortion as a method of birth control.

2. Conservatives generally support the death penalty. It prevents recidivism, and we know that it isn't a deterrent because it isn't used properly. If used properly, it would be a much better deterrent. Rather than let a condemned person languish at taxpayer expense for 3-14 years, allow the criminal to have his appeals and then finish it. It's not supposed to be rehabilitation, it's supposed to be punishment for a crime.

2a. Punishment needs to be "cruel and unusual" else it is not "punishment".

2b. Prisoners of War are to be treated "humanely". They are not to be coddled.

3. Conservatives support gun ownership as an individual right, as protected by the U.S. Constitution. You have no argument that will sway this. We also know that gun registration schemes will not deter crime any more than the death penalty will. Cars and guns aren't the same, and arguing about the registration of cars vs guns is stupid.

3a. The Second Amendment was not ratified to protect guns for "hunting purposes". The Second Amendment was ratified so that citizens could defend themselves.

4. We wear the label "conservative" with pride, like a banner. When someone new posts, they will likely get labeled. As a leftist, a commie, socialist, Marxist, democrat, conservative...whatever. If you don't wish to be labeled, it's simple. Don't post.

5. We don't support "gay rights". If a homosexual wants to be treated the same as a heterosexual, keep your bedroom activities in your bedroom. We don't care if you like another guy. We just don't want you telling us we need to find it acceptable. You can be a homosexual without demanding that I embrace the idea. We also as a rule don't believe in "gay marriage". Marriage, by definition is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals have corrupted enough words in the English language without the need to redefine the word marriage. Call it something else.

6. We also usually have a copy of the U.S. Constitution close at hand. We've probably all read it at least once, and refer to it often. If you want to quote something or argue that something is Constitututional or not, be VERY sure of what you are typing.

7. The "separation of Church and State" is not grounded in the U.S. Constitution. The phrase does NOT appear ANYWHERE in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution protects freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

7a. For years, leftists have been strictly adhering to some words/phrases in the U.S. Constitution, while "interpreting" others. The SCOTUS has declared open season on the Constitution, and I hereby declare "open season" on them. Write them, e-mail them, call them. This is NOT a call to violence, but a call to act.

8. As a rule, we think the NEA and the public "education" system in our country sucks. Generally, we also support homeschooling and homeschoolers. We have several teachers here that we like and admire. We realize that the MAJORITY of teachers are NOT the problem.

9. A great many of us are Christians. If you think that coming into FreeConservatives and debating religion with one or more of us is having "religion forced down your throat", you will likely be laughed at, sneered at, and ridiculed.

9a. My personal beliefs have never been made public in any of these forums, and they are not to be. I do enjoy being called a "Fundie" though, by morons who simply guess at what I believe.

10. The opposite of totalitarian is NOT totalitarian. Hence, the opposite(s) of Communist, Fascist, Marxist, and Socialist is freedom. There are NOT totalitarian regimes at "both ends of the political spectrum". At one end, you will find all the totalitarian regimes (though in different economic paradigms), and at the opposite end of the political spectrum you will find freedom. Anarchy is not complete freedom. Liberty is.

11. "Presumed innocent until guilty" is a legal term, required in a court room. It is not necessary for me or anyone else outside of a courtroom to assume such.

Like I said above, I don't speak for EVERYONE here, but that's why I used many qualifiers above. Some of my fellow Conservatives are free to post responses and additions, but the points above are the ones that I have noticed appearing constantly, with every new influx of refugees from some left wing sites.

The things above are inherently Conservative ideals. By posting on a bulletin board, you will, in all likelihood, be unable to sway anyone that is here.

If your opinions differ from mine, I'll offer you the usual disclaimer.

"I don't care."

We're not close-minded, we're just tired of reading the same crap all the time.


Moderators/Administrators feel free to move at your will, but you might oughta leave it in Political for a little while. TRL won't get pissed about it.

Just a suggestion.

Oh, and if any leftists feel obligated to respond to this post, you will probably regret it. I have posted my opinion, and paraphrasing a former poster, I am the world's best authority on my opinion. As such, my opinion is without question, correct.

I have formed my opinions over a long, happy, intensely pressure filled life, that has netted me significant rewards, and the ability to enjoy life to the fullest.

I am not likely to change how I think about things based on some stranger coming along and disputing what I think on an internet bulletin board. Were one of you to offer something scientifically disputing what I say above, I might actually consider reading it.

I also don't care about anyone else's opinion on the points above. If you want to offer your opinion, write your own post.

One further note.

Feel free to discuss the news, politics, and whatever, but be sure that there are a lot of folks here that will either ignore you, ban you, or flame you if you want to argue these points.

VERY sincerely,
TRL

JimRaynor
06-29-2005, 02:44 AM
2a. Punishment needs to be "cruel and unusual" else it is not "punishment".

I don't agree with that.
http://www.tfd.com/marriage
Errr... *Checks his dictionary on the counter and says wait a sec, Letter D definition aint in there (don't even joke about that D thing).
They are changing the dictionaries now!!! :blush::eek:

TheRealLobo
06-29-2005, 05:04 AM
2a. Punishment needs to be "cruel and unusual" else it is not "punishment".

I don't agree with that.

Gee...maybe I should change what I think.

Nah...I'll just refer him to the part where I typed "I don't care."

http://www.tfd.com/marriage
Errr... *Checks his dictionary on the counter and says wait a sec, Letter D definition aint in there (don't even joke about that D thing).
They are changing the dictionaries now!!! :blush::eek:

See above.

aaron11
06-29-2005, 07:25 AM
2a. Punishment needs to be "cruel and unusual" else it is not "punishment".

I don't agree with that.
http://www.tfd.com/marriage
Errr... *Checks his dictionary on the counter and says wait a sec, Letter D definition aint in there (don't even joke about that D thing).
They are changing the dictionaries now!!! :blush::eek:


Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: <TT>'mar-ij</TT>
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE (http://dictionary.reference.com/legal/search?db=mwlaw&nq=divorce)
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

<!-- google_ad_region_end=def -->
<TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #3f3f3f 1px dotted" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=src>Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/legal/aboutmwlaw.html): <CITE>Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.</CITE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

JimRaynor
07-01-2005, 06:14 AM
I know, I said I was scared by the gays changing the dictionaries.
Creepyness. Not being sarcastic.

Why should I care about your opinion if you don't care about mine?

I do agree with most of your first post though, just cruel and usual punishment is for the "bad guys"... not us.

Warlady
07-01-2005, 11:30 PM
2a. Punishment needs to be "cruel and unusual" else it is not "punishment".

I don't agree with that.
http://www.tfd.com/marriage
Errr... *Checks his dictionary on the counter and says wait a sec, Letter D definition aint in there (don't even joke about that D thing).
They are changing the dictionaries now!!! :blush::eek:

Jim you beat me to it. Being a strict constructionist I cannot go against the Constitution of the United States which clearly states in the Eight Amendment "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." Lobo, I thought you were a strict Constitutionalist. :(

I know. I know. You don't care. Thankfully most of us do. Otherwise I agree with everything else you said. So I give you an A-.

aaron11
07-02-2005, 12:11 PM
I know, I said I was scared by the gays changing the dictionaries.
Creepyness. Not being sarcastic.

Why should I care about your opinion if you don't care about mine?

I do agree with most of your first post though, just cruel and usual punishment is for the "bad guys"... not us.

You should check out some of the strange "leftist" definitions in that so called dictionary...Its not just Marriage that they are trying to redefine...

Anyway I see what you meant...:thumb:

TheRealLobo
07-02-2005, 07:14 PM
...Why should I care about your opinion if you don't care about mine?
...

Because I'm tired of arguing the same points.

TheRealLobo
07-02-2005, 07:20 PM
The "I don't care" still apllies.

This thread was NOT intended to start a debate on what Lobo believes.

The thread was started to keep people from arguning the same old shit over and over.

If anyone wishes to address any of the points, have at it.

I still won't care.

Feel free to remove the post...again.

Maggie_T
07-16-2005, 09:22 AM
My little contribution.

Here's what lefties say every time they want to justify their coddling of terrorists: "We are the good guys (?!). We are not like them."

Just remember that being the good guys does NOT mean being the stupid guys who act like sitting ducks so as not to "offend" Islamofascists.

Good guys have the right to defend themselves and (gasp!) counterattack, if necessary.

Capisce?

EdmundDantes
07-24-2005, 08:53 PM
Lobo, that pretty much sums it up. I would LOVe to post that over at DU but as I have been banned there 9 times over the past two years, they wouldn't understand it

TempestTossed
07-29-2005, 02:16 AM
TheRealLobo, can you please direct me to a thread explaining why conservatives in general think "cruel and unusual punishment" should be enacted by the American government although it is expressly forbidden in the US constitution?

TheRealLobo
07-29-2005, 06:12 AM
TheRealLobo, can you please direct me to a thread explaining why conservatives in general think "cruel and unusual punishment" should be enacted by the American government although it is expressly forbidden in the US constitution?

Sigh...Does everyone understand what quote marks are all about?

Does everyone understand that prisoners that don't get to watch TV, have free condoms distibuted, not have alcohol, or (gasp!) have to actually work, consider their punishment "cruel and unusual"?

Can TempestTossed grasp subtlety? Apparently not.

TheRealLobo
07-29-2005, 07:32 AM
Inmates have the right to be free, under the Eighth Amendment, from inhuman conditions because those conditions constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment. The term "cruel and unusual" was not defined at the time the Amendment was passed, but it was noted by the Supreme Court in 1848 that such punishments would include "drawing and quartering, embowelling alive, beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive," among other things. Today, many of these punishments may seem antiquated, but the basic scope of the protection remains the same. Any punishment that can be considered inhumane treatment or that violates the basic concept of a person's dignity may be found to be cruel and unusual.

Info on the "cruel and inhuman" (frivoulous) lawsuits. One of my favorite is the one that sued under C&U because thre weren't any raisins in his cereal.

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/vp941228/12280418.htm

Another couple of favorites of mine that shows "C&U":

* Young v. Murphy: Prisoner sues for not receiving scheduled parole
hearing, though he was out on escape when the hearing was held.
(Mississippi)


* Brittaker v. Rowland: Inmate says his meal was in poor condition. He
claims his sandwich was soggy and his cookie was broken. (Calif)


3) Prisoner who murdered five people sues after lightning knocks out the
prison's TV satellite dish and he must watch network programs which he
says contain violence, profanity and other objectionable material.
(Jackson v. Barton)

From http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fun30.htm

More examples of "C&U":




By Damon Marturion
New Business News Staff Writer

According to Department of Justice figures, 30,000 inmate lawsuits were filed last year (added to heavy backlogs -- more than 28,000 in New York alone) against prison officials for "civil rights" violations, the vast majority described by judges and court officials as frivolous.

Among the lawsuits were those by prisoners complaining that:

the prison canteen supplied "creamy" peanut butter when a prisoner bought "crunchy"
guards wouldn't refrigerate his ice cream snack so that he could eat it later ($1 million lawsuit)
his toilet seat was too cold
as an inmate-paralegal in the prison law library, he should make the same wage that lawyers make
prisons should offer salad bars ($129 million)
a limit on the number of Kool-Aid refills is "cruel and unusual punishment"
the scrambled eggs were cooked too hard.
In New York, 20 percent of the entire budget of the Attorney General's office is spent on prisoner lawsuits.



Yeah, apparently the definition of "C&U" is a little different than what the Constitution says it is.

Let's let them suffer without cable TV, raisins, broken cookies, no salad bars, not enough "Kool-Aid", and the ghastly horror of overcooked eggs.

Any other questions?

TempestTossed
07-29-2005, 02:42 PM
Thanks, Lobo, that explains it.