Mark Levin book signing - wow

[First]

today's far left Democrat Party

lol. Aren't you supposed to be, um, older? If you think the Democratic party is far left today, what do you remember it being in the 70's and 80's?

 

[werepossum]

lol. Aren't you supposed to be, um, older? If you think the Democratic party is far left today, what do you remember it being in the 70's and 80's?

The party for which I voted, dedicated to the little guy, the blue collar worker on which this country was founded. In fact, I still consider Jim Sasser, on balance, to be the best Senator for whom I've ever voted. (Nothing against Frist, whom I also liked quite a lot.) Once Reagan came along and I became convinced that Republicans weren't the Devil in disguise, I had to actually pay attention to what the Dems were doing. It certainly wasn't what they claimed back home, but it bears little resemblance to today's Democrat Party either.

Let's all compare and contrast Tip O'Neal and Nancy Pelosi. Or Mike Mansfield and Harry Reid. Liberals certainly, but people you could respect, out to empower individuals rather than government.

 

[First]

The party for which I voted, dedicated to the little guy, the blue collar worker on which this country was founded. In fact, I still consider Jim Sasser, on balance, to be the best Senator for whom I've ever voted. (Nothing against Frist, whom I also liked quite a lot.) Once Reagan came along and I became convinced that Republicans weren't the Devil in disguise, I had to actually pay attention to what the Dems were doing. It certainly wasn't what they claimed back home, but it bears little resemblance to today's Democrat Party either.

OK, but the Democrats of the 70's and 80's were stridently pro-union as a result, stridently anti-freetrade, stridently gov't-first and social justice (affirmative action, reparations, et al). You didn't have free-trade/pro-gun/free market Dems then the way you do now. They're all over the map. Dems had a nice 20+ year run of liberal excess just before, during and just after Reagan, but since Clinton they've pretty much been free market Dems, moderated by an electorate that is highly polarized with lots of aging baby boomers sticking with their outdated conservative ideas that are no longer mainstream, combined with a smaller but sprawling minority urban voters that are much more progressive in their tendencies and less fearful of gov't solutions to problems that simply cannot be solved by markets (like reining in financial gimmickry).

Let's all compare and contrast Tip O'Neal and Nancy Pelosi. Or Mike Mansfield and Harry Reid. Liberals certainly, but people you could respect, out to empower individuals rather than government.

Debatable, especially WRT O'Neal. But ultimately sort of pointless to bring up, as Pelosi and Reid certainly don't represent the Democrat mainstream, they're partisans in a position that requires it, unfortunately; you need it in DC to defend party ideology (not saying that's good).

I find it odd you would pine for the days when Dems supported the little guy, but then decide to move to the Republican party. Not sure how that worked, but ok.

 

[Zaap]

All the bickering and shooting the messenger (Levin) means squat.

The fact is, I've not seen anyone present a better idea than his of amending the constitution to better hold government accountable.

Not one. Mark himself says, hey, if there's a better idea, he's all ears. But of course all he gets is a bunch of horseshit from the usual bitch-and-whine types, but ZERO solutions.

So okay, what are the better ideas? Elect more of the same clowns? Keep doing the same stupid shit that's dug us into this hole- just with some sort of 'better' players who are going to magically police themselves?

The status-quo crap from Levins detractors is always some BS variant of 'more of the same just magically different this time' and always has the same effect: more of the same.

The larger point people miss (and of course most of the detractors prove they not only haven't read his latest book, they don't even have a single clue what it's actually proposing, and where the basis of the proposal comes from) is that it's not even Levin's proposed amendments in exact form that's the most important thing- it's the fact that the idea itself is pretty much the ONLY thing that will work in the long term. Everything else is just more bandaids applied to lopped off heads, more bullshit.

The federal leviathan is NOT going to turn around and magically regulate itself back to a level of sanity. It's NOT going to stop creating mountains of unsustainable debt. It's NOT going to stop finding ways to spy on you. It's not ever going to say "Okay, we have enough of your money." Bloated bureaucracies that are barely even constitutional to begin with aren't going to defund themselves, or stop creating new, ever more costly versions of themselves. The individual members of government are not going to become saints, they're not going to stop taking special interest money, they're not going to stop passing massive spending bills behind closed doors before anyone's had a chance to read them... etc. etc.

None of it is going to just correct itself. Further: everyone pretending to be a 'conservative' (apparently in lip-service only) just sitting around bitching about it is NOT going to change it. Sycophant liberal morons bent-over with kneepads and lipstick on for any and everything government does are sure as hell not going to do anything.

So, the only solution is the people doing what they've done in the past- use the framework of the law itself to enact change that's actually permanent- that means the constitution. (If that's a dirty word or a foreign concept to you, you're not a conservative so STFU already misusing the term, let alone somehow thinking you own it).

Does Levin say it will be easy? No, in fact he constantly goes on about how monumentally difficult it will be. But again, only liberals and RINOs wet themselves over something being difficult. And if there's a better way, not more status quo BS- then for f's sake let's hear it. The problem is, all the loudmouths don't have any answers, just more bitching and moaning at those who do.

 

[CountZero]

moonbat at some leftwing "thinktank" (now there's an oxymoron)

Keep calling them moonbats, it makes you sound very intelligent. I can say it has impressed me to no end and really makes your arguments stand out as clear minded and not all full of idiotic partisan bias.

 

[Zaap]

^ Newsflash: I don't care what you think. I certainly haven't read anything from you that sounded intelligent, just mouth-breathing drivel. So please do STFU.

 

[First]

All the bickering and shooting the messenger (Levin) means squat.

The fact is, I've not seen anyone present a better idea than his of amending the constitution to better hold government accountable.

Not one. Mark himself says, hey, if there's a better idea, he's all ears. But of course all he gets is a bunch of horseshit from the usual bitch-and-whine types, but ZERO solutions.

So okay, what are the better ideas? Elect more of the same clowns? Keep doing the same stupid shit that's dug us into this hole- just with some sort of 'better' players who are going to magically police themselves?

The status-quo crap from Levins detractors is always some BS variant of 'more of the same just magically different this time' and always has the same effect: more of the same.

The larger point people miss (and of course most of the detractors prove they not only haven't read his latest book, they don't even have a single clue what it's actually proposing, and where the basis of the proposal comes from) is that it's not even Levin's proposed amendments in exact form that's the most important thing- it's the fact that the idea itself is pretty much the ONLY thing that will work in the long term. Everything else is just more bandaids applied to lopped off heads, more bullshit.

The federal leviathan is NOT going to turn around and magically regulate itself back to a level of sanity. It's NOT going to stop creating mountains of unsustainable debt. It's NOT going to stop finding ways to spy on you. It's not ever going to say "Okay, we have enough of your money." Bloated bureaucracies that are barely even constitutional to begin with aren't going to defund themselves, or stop creating new, ever more costly versions of themselves. The individual members of government are not going to become saints, they're not going to stop taking special interest money, they're not going to stop passing massive spending bills behind closed doors before anyone's had a chance to read them... etc. etc.

None of it is going to just correct itself. Further: everyone pretending to be a 'conservative' (apparently in lip-service only) just sitting around bitching about it is NOT going to change it. Sycophant liberal morons bent-over with kneepads and lipstick on for any and everything government does are sure as hell not going to do anything.

So, the only solution is the people doing what they've done in the past- use the framework of the law itself to enact change that's actually permanent- that means the constitution. (If that's a dirty word or a foreign concept to you, you're not a conservative so STFU already misusing the term, let alone somehow thinking you own it).

Does Levin say it will be easy? No, in fact he constantly goes on about how monumentally difficult it will be. But again, only liberals and RINOs wet themselves over something being difficult. And if there's a better way, not more status quo BS- then for f's sake let's hear it. The problem is, all the loudmouths don't have any answers, just more bitching and moaning at those who do.

You're hopelessly clueless. Amending the Constitution is extraordinarily rare for a reason, as it is reserved for only the most important and dire of legal circumstances or events that prompt said critical change (e.g. the Civil War prompting us to pass wonderful amendments like the 13th and 14th). It's not reserved for fanatically wingnutted interpretations of the Constitution as a document entirely encapsulated by the words "limited government". Sorry guys, your dogma has already been soundly rejected, for a good few decades now.

 

[werepossum]

All the bickering and shooting the messenger (Levin) means squat.

The fact is, I've not seen anyone present a better idea than his of amending the constitution to better hold government accountable.

Not one. Mark himself says, hey, if there's a better idea, he's all ears. But of course all he gets is a bunch of horseshit from the usual bitch-and-whine types, but ZERO solutions.

So okay, what are the better ideas? Elect more of the same clowns? Keep doing the same stupid shit that's dug us into this hole- just with some sort of 'better' players who are going to magically police themselves?

The status-quo crap from Levins detractors is always some BS variant of 'more of the same just magically different this time' and always has the same effect: more of the same.

The larger point people miss (and of course most of the detractors prove they not only haven't read his latest book, they don't even have a single clue what it's actually proposing, and where the basis of the proposal comes from) is that it's not even Levin's proposed amendments in exact form that's the most important thing- it's the fact that the idea itself is pretty much the ONLY thing that will work in the long term. Everything else is just more bandaids applied to lopped off heads, more bullshit.

The federal leviathan is NOT going to turn around and magically regulate itself back to a level of sanity. It's NOT going to stop creating mountains of unsustainable debt. It's NOT going to stop finding ways to spy on you. It's not ever going to say "Okay, we have enough of your money." Bloated bureaucracies that are barely even constitutional to begin with aren't going to defund themselves, or stop creating new, ever more costly versions of themselves. The individual members of government are not going to become saints, they're not going to stop taking special interest money, they're not going to stop passing massive spending bills behind closed doors before anyone's had a chance to read them... etc. etc.

None of it is going to just correct itself. Further: everyone pretending to be a 'conservative' (apparently in lip-service only) just sitting around bitching about it is NOT going to change it. Sycophant liberal morons bent-over with kneepads and lipstick on for any and everything government does are sure as hell not going to do anything.

So, the only solution is the people doing what they've done in the past- use the framework of the law itself to enact change that's actually permanent- that means the constitution. (If that's a dirty word or a foreign concept to you, you're not a conservative so STFU already misusing the term, let alone somehow thinking you own it).

Does Levin say it will be easy? No, in fact he constantly goes on about how monumentally difficult it will be. But again, only liberals and RINOs wet themselves over something being difficult. And if there's a better way, not more status quo BS- then for f's sake let's hear it. The problem is, all the loudmouths don't have any answers, just more bitching and moaning at those who do.

Fair enough. But as Eskimospy pointed out, a Constitutional Convention is dangerous enough to be monumentally stupid, especially from Levin's point of view. America is currently more left wing than right wing as evidenced by our recent elections, which suggests that Levin might well end up with a government much less to his liking. Perhaps even switching from "negative" rights (what government cannot do TO you) to Obama's "positive" rights (what government must do FOR you.) Even smart progressives aren't in favor of a Constitutional Convention because, again as Eskimospy pointed out, special interests would all be highly motivated to buy special privileges. Gazillions would be spent trying to convince people that certain things should be enshrined Constitutionally. We might get something better, or we might get something a hell of a lot worse.

Also, much as I respect Levin's intellect I don't think some of his positions are sufficiently internally consistent to be easily enshrined into the Constitution even if he had majority backing. How does one ensure small government, individual liberty and personal responsibility while also banning gay marriage and abortion? I haven't read his last book (although I have bought it) so I cannot speak to his specific points, but in general I think amending the Constitution should be done seldom and with great forethought.

 

[Zaap]

America is currently more left wing than right wing as evidenced by our recent elections, which suggests that Levin might well end up with a government much less to his liking.

Sorry, but that's a reach, basing it on who is president. Many of the same people that elected Bush twice in a row are the same people that elected Obama. And many are the same that elected Reagan, Bush, and then went Clinton, but then handed Clinton an R congress.

It's funny to me how every time there's a switch from R to D or visa-versa people swear up and down that the whole country just magically changed from left to right then back again. Or they seem to believe we just swap populations with some alternate universe USA every 4 years or so.

The majority of people aren't as caught up in all of this R vs. D horseshit as many of us here arguing politics are. The country certainly isn't 'right wing' but it sure as hell isn't majority leftwing either. It's more moderate to center-right. Obama was elected because people wanted a change from Bush and then because Romney was an awful pick by establishment Republicans (basically RINOs that keep pushing this idea that Democrat-lite will be more appealing to anyone than the real thing. Their track record speak for itself).

Since I don't believe the majority of people or states really are leftwing lunatics, I don't believe the process would produce a whole lot of leftwing lunatic results. The left always has to lie about or pretend to be 'moderate' or even right to sell it's dumb ideas to a majority of people.

Perhaps even switching from "negative" rights (what government cannot do TO you) to Obama's "positive" rights (what government must do FOR you.) Even smart progressives aren't in favor of a Constitutional Convention because, again as Eskimospy pointed out, special interests would all be highly motivated to buy special privileges. Gazillions would be spent trying to convince people that certain things should be enshrined Constitutionally. We might get something better, or we might get something a hell of a lot worse.

You're clearly a bright person, so I'm really not sure why your citing Eskimospy as some sort of authority on any of this. I haven't seen a shred of intellect from his ilk.

So basically this is just another way of rewording the usual "more of the same" approach. Special interests are too powerful, therefore..... let's don't do try anything lest special interests be... err.. what they already are, too powerful. They might try to enshrine in the constitution- what they already ignore the constitution to get. So basically... so what?

First off, they're free to attempt their own constitutional amendments right now. They've been free to attempt it all along. But you could use this same line of reasoning to say that government shouldn't pass ANY legislation. After all, special interests will spend lots of money to have their way, and we the people won't have a say. So... basically business as usual for any and all processes coming out of washington. Solution? Well don't try to change it!

How much influence do special interests have over government bureaucracies that you have no vote on who runs them, no vote on any of the thousands of regulations they put out every year, no say what-so-ever on anything they do, and that you'd need the backing of major legal firms to even request information on what they do that concerns you? None of us have any idea, because we're not even privy to that information.

So why not propose changes to the constitution that would make all these unaccountable, unelected, lifetime appointed mini-despots finally be held accountable? Because some powerful interests who already have untold influence over them might object?

The beauty of using a 3/4's majority of state legislatures to amend the constitution (the framers allowed that for a reason) is that it cuts the beltway out of the process almost entirely. They have their own separate avenue for the amendment process, but the people and the states have our own. The special interests are able to run roughshod over the D.C. crooks, but less likely to be able to do so to a majority of the states at once.

Again, would any of this be a walk in the park? No. But I think Levin is right: eventually, there's going to be no choice. There will come a time when the absolute bottom drops out, when there is no more phony 'debt ceiling' to be raised, no more cooking the books, pretending that owing more money than has ever existed on the planet is 'no big deal' and something radical will have to be done, OR the country will in many ways cease to be.

I'd love to see some better plan, but I haven't seen one. I've seen people do EXACTLY what Levin charges- complain, bitch, moan, blather away... but never once try and actually do something that would enact a real change.

Also, much as I respect Levin's intellect I don't think some of his positions are sufficiently internally consistent to be easily enshrined into the Constitution even if he had majority backing. How does one ensure small government, individual liberty and personal responsibility while also banning gay marriage and abortion?

No argument with you here- I'm exactly the same. I part ways with many conservatives on those very issues. I frankly can't believe people derail themselves over such nonsense as caring about who gets married and who wants to abort their babies. You're 100% right that these things don't really fit. I'm all about sane financial policy and not sidetracking into social policies that get us nowhere.

I would say Levin's position is that these are things the states should decide for themselves. He's not to my knowledge proposing anything that'd overturn any of these things, nor do I think that would ever happen. Currently, states decide their policies on marriage, and I don't see anything in this that would overturn R v Wade.

My personal view is purely libertarian- government should stay out of both things as much as possible, which IS a consistent small-government position. A smaller government is less intrusive and shouldn't be nosing it's business into restricting marriage among consenting unrelated adults- to the extent that it does is yet another overreach of big government.

 

[werepossum]

Not just President - Dems also got more votes for Senators and Representatives. The Pubbies only held the House because they controlled more state legislatures in a census redistricting year. But I'm not saying the majority of people are left wing loons or that we'd get that kind of change, only that a move to the left would be more likely than a move to the right.

Regarding special interests, normally their interests are advanced by convincing Congressmen (in no small part with campaign contributions) of a needed change. Congressmen are usually looking toward their next election so they always have to be cognizant of their voters and what they can sell them. But with a Constitutional Convention, all bets are off and the special interests can market directly to the people, with no consideration of re-election needs, as well as to state legislators who tend to be less sophisticated. To a large degree I find that relative lack of sophistication desirable, but I'm not extending that to mucking around with the Constitution. I prefer those changes to be slow and very well considered individually, preferably with almost universal support.

Sorry, but that's a reach, basing it on who is president. Many of the same people that elected Bush twice in a row are the same people that elected Obama. And many are the same that elected Reagan, Bush, and then went Clinton, but then handed Clinton an R congress.

It's funny to me how every time there's a switch from R to D or visa-versa people swear up and down that the whole country just magically changed from left to right then back again. Or they seem to believe we just swap populations with some alternate universe USA every 4 years or so.

The majority of people aren't as caught up in all of this R vs. D horseshit as many of us here arguing politics are. The country certainly isn't 'right wing' but it sure as hell isn't majority leftwing either. It's more moderate to center-right. Obama was elected because people wanted a change from Bush and then because Romney was an awful pick by establishment Republicans (basically RINOs that keep pushing this idea that Democrat-lite will be more appealing to anyone than the real thing. Their track record speak for itself).

Since I don't believe the majority of people or states really are leftwing lunatics, I don't believe the process would produce a whole lot of leftwing lunatic results. The left always has to lie about or pretend to be 'moderate' or even right to sell it's dumb ideas to a majority of people.



You're clearly a bright person, so I'm really not sure why your citing Eskimospy as some sort of authority on any of this. I haven't seen a shred of intellect from his ilk.

So basically this is just another way of rewording the usual "more of the same" approach. Special interests are too powerful, therefore..... let's don't do try anything lest special interests be... err.. what they already are, too powerful. They might try to enshrine in the constitution- what they already ignore the constitution to get. So basically... so what?

First off, they're free to attempt their own constitutional amendments right now. They've been free to attempt it all along. But you could use this same line of reasoning to say that government shouldn't pass ANY legislation. After all, special interests will spend lots of money to have their way, and we the people won't have a say. So... basically business as usual for any and all processes coming out of washington. Solution? Well don't try to change it!

How much influence do special interests have over government bureaucracies that you have no vote on who runs them, no vote on any of the thousands of regulations they put out every year, no say what-so-ever on anything they do, and that you'd need the backing of major legal firms to even request information on what they do that concerns you? None of us have any idea, because we're not even privy to that information.

So why not propose changes to the constitution that would make all these unaccountable, unelected, lifetime appointed mini-despots finally be held accountable? Because some powerful interests who already have untold influence over them might object?

The beauty of using a 3/4's majority of state legislatures to amend the constitution (the framers allowed that for a reason) is that it cuts the beltway out of the process almost entirely. They have their own separate avenue for the amendment process, but the people and the states have our own. The special interests are able to run roughshod over the D.C. crooks, but less likely to be able to do so to a majority of the states at once.

Again, would any of this be a walk in the park? No. But I think Levin is right: eventually, there's going to be no choice. There will come a time when the absolute bottom drops out, when there is no more phony 'debt ceiling' to be raised, no more cooking the books, pretending that owing more money than has ever existed on the planet is 'no big deal' and something radical will have to be done, OR the country will in many ways cease to be.

I'd love to see some better plan, but I haven't seen one. I've seen people do EXACTLY what Levin charges- complain, bitch, moan, blather away... but never once try and actually do something that would enact a real change.



No argument with you here- I'm exactly the same. I part ways with many conservatives on those very issues. I frankly can't believe people derail themselves over such nonsense as caring about who gets married and who wants to abort their babies. You're 100% right that these things don't really fit. I'm all about sane financial policy and not sidetracking into social policies that get us nowhere.

I would say Levin's position is that these are things the states should decide for themselves. He's not to my knowledge proposing anything that'd overturn any of these things, nor do I think that would ever happen. Currently, states decide their policies on marriage, and I don't see anything in this that would overturn R v Wade.

My personal view is purely libertarian- government should stay out of both things as much as possible, which IS a consistent small-government position. A smaller government is less intrusive and shouldn't be nosing it's business into restricting marriage among consenting unrelated adults- to the extent that it does is yet another overreach of big government.

 

[Incorruptible]

So in your worldview, anything that's enacted is a good idea, anything that isn't is a bad idea.

So the government selling guns to drug dealers= good idea.

The government being made to follow its own rules and not spend so much it bankroupts the entire country= bad idea.


And anyway, what are your own 'good ideas' for anything? Oh wait, they couldn't possibly be good ideas unless they've already been enacted so nevermind.


Ahh, such a genius you are. Once the majority of the population felt that slavery was perfectly okay. Antisemitism was all the rage in Europe last century. Somehow, the idea that these were bad things only resonated with a minority of the public- but hey, let's always have tyranny of the majority- it always leads to such great things!



You certainly prove that, it's all you do. But the difference between you and Levin is: you're not saying anything meaningful.

All he does is attack the opposition and prefer to try to shut them down.He doesn't offer real solutions since they won't work.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Yeah yeah sure. What we clearly need is more bitching and whining. That'll fix everything.

Wait there's someone with an actual plan based on the fixes made possible by the constitution itself? Denounce! Don't even look at the idea. Back to more bitching and whining about lobbyists and money in Washington... more decades of just complaining will fix everything.

Oh the ironing!

 

[OBLAMA2009]

Very encouraging to see this many people line up to get their copy of The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic signed. In Long Island NY no less.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiOPsDk5rOA

I'm nearly half way through it myself. We have to do something to fight back against this out of control monster of a government we've allowed to become so powerful.

mark levin is a total hypocrite. on the one hand he claims he opposes big government but on the other hand is constantly trying to get the us into wars with arab countries to benefit israel

 

[Zaap]

Not just President - Dems also got more votes for Senators and Representatives. The Pubbies only held the House because they controlled more state legislatures in a census redistricting year. But I'm not saying the majority of people are left wing loons or that we'd get that kind of change, only that a move to the left would be more likely than a move to the right.

Show me one study that shows the makeup of the US is more left than right. The last I saw:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

It's only even a contest between moderates and conservatives. Liberals are bringing up the rear.

Like I said, R vs. D isn't any real indicator. Americans are actually pretty fickle when it comes to those two. D's think they are on top right now, but just like it has before, it can turn on a dime. Like I said, the same people that gave us 8 years of GWB have now given us 8 years of B.O.

The bottom line: conservative ideas are better than liberal ideas- in fact, liberals don't really have any ideas. They have class-envy, they have the race card, and they have some moldy old socialist bumper-stickers they keep dusting off and trying to cram down people's throats. They only ever convince a majority of anything by pretending to be moderates or even leaning right. (ie: Clinton).

When it comes down to it, I'd put conservative ideas on economics up against leftwing crap any day of the week, take it to a vote by a majority of Americans, and the conservative positions (mostly common sense) win out every time vs. the liberal crap (mostly tired class-envy crap.)

So I say bring it on- it'll be the libs quaking in their boots to come to any constitutional convention and try to convince 3/4 of the people to ratify their class-envy/race-baiting/outdated emo-drivel, not conservatives who bring solid, common sense fiscal ideas to the table.

Regarding special interests, normally their interests are advanced by convincing Congressmen (in no small part with campaign contributions) of a needed change. Congressmen are usually looking toward their next election so they always have to be cognizant of their voters and what they can sell them. But with a Constitutional Convention, all bets are off and the special interests can market directly to the people, with no consideration of re-election needs, as well as to state legislators who tend to be less sophisticated. To a large degree I find that relative lack of sophistication desirable, but I'm not extending that to mucking around with the Constitution. I prefer those changes to be slow and very well considered individually, preferably with almost universal support.

Congress has no say in an amendment process brought by state legislatures. The framers built in an emergency escape hatch right around those twits.

 

[fskimospy]

For the record, my statement was:

I thought it was self-evident that Friedman was in the "dead" category. I will endeavor to be more clear in the future. Had I not placed Friedman in the "dead" category, I would have pointed out that he considered himself a classical liberal, not a conservative. (News flash - not everyone who isn't bat shit crazy is a conservative.) His concept of a negative income tax (assuring everyone a minimum income without work) is certainly not a conservative idea. Nor would his preference of dismantling all government licensing programs be considered conservative. Friedman's closest classification would be libertarian - although given his fiscal conservatism and today's far left Democrat Party, I can see why you'd consider him conservative. I do identify with him - but again, I have a lot of libertarian and liberal positions - so I have no problem counting him as a conservative if you wish. But again, he's in the "dead" category.

By American political classifications as they are generally understood, Milton Friedman was a conservative. I have no interest in arguing semantics on that. Additionally, Friedman was considered a conservative in his day, not simply a conservative as compared to today.

If you went and looked at the other people on my list you would see that they have an awful lot of political positions in common with Mr. Friedman.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Given that most so called "conservatives" in the US consider Obama a socialist, I'm not sure I can trust their definition of "conservative".

 

[fskimospy]

Given that most so called "conservatives" in the US consider Obama a socialist, I'm not sure I can trust their definition of "conservative".

That's sort of my whole point. When a group radicalizes like the Republicans have, their frame of reference shifts. That's when you start getting the declarations that lifelong conservatives are no longer conservatives, etc, etc. Part of the goal of radicalization is a redefinition of terms.

 

[werepossum]

Show me one study that shows the makeup of the US is more left than right. The last I saw:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

It's only even a contest between moderates and conservatives. Liberals are bringing up the rear.

Like I said, R vs. D isn't any real indicator. Americans are actually pretty fickle when it comes to those two. D's think they are on top right now, but just like it has before, it can turn on a dime. Like I said, the same people that gave us 8 years of GWB have now given us 8 years of B.O.

The bottom line: conservative ideas are better than liberal ideas- in fact, liberals don't really have any ideas. They have class-envy, they have the race card, and they have some moldy old socialist bumper-stickers they keep dusting off and trying to cram down people's throats. They only ever convince a majority of anything by pretending to be moderates or even leaning right. (ie: Clinton).

When it comes down to it, I'd put conservative ideas on economics up against leftwing crap any day of the week, take it to a vote by a majority of Americans, and the conservative positions (mostly common sense) win out every time vs. the liberal crap (mostly tired class-envy crap.)

So I say bring it on- it'll be the libs quaking in their boots to come to any constitutional convention and try to convince 3/4 of the people to ratify their class-envy/race-baiting/outdated emo-drivel, not conservatives who bring solid, common sense fiscal ideas to the table.

Congress has no say in an amendment process brought by state legislatures. The framers built in an emergency escape hatch right around those twits.

I'm aware of that make-up. I guess my big fear with a Constitutional Convention is that the moderates and the low information voters could be sold a bill of goods which would damage this country. Given that kind of pressure plus a rush of sudden lobbying I don't know that state legislators would stick to principle. Also seems to me that although a majority of state legislatures are conservative Republican, their main push seems to be social conservatism, and while I have no problems with social conservatism as a world view I would not like to see it enshrined in the Constitution.

 

[First]

Show me one study that shows the makeup of the US is more left than right. The last I saw:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

It's only even a contest between moderates and conservatives. Liberals are bringing up the rear.

A country that votes in Obama by a combined margin of 14M votes in two Presidential elections is a left-leaning country. Sorry. Note that the classification of liberal and conservative don't capture everyone who is left-wing and right-wing, respectively. Notice how Dems have a massive voter registration advantage mostly because moderates and some conservatives vote Dem, far more than vice versa.

Like I said, R vs. D isn't any real indicator. Americans are actually pretty fickle when it comes to those two. D's think they are on top right now, but just like it has before, it can turn on a dime. Like I said, the same people that gave us 8 years of GWB have now given us 8 years of B.O.

Uh, no. The actual electorate has permanently changed in the last 2 elections, so citing Bush means next to nothing because blacks and hispanics now simply vote at much higher levels, there are more of them to boot and blue collar white voters in key states have no reason to vote for Republicans with older white Republicans quite obviously passing away over time. That's called game over.

The bottom line: conservative ideas are better than liberal ideas- in fact, liberals don't really have any ideas. They have class-envy, they have the race card, and they have some moldy old socialist bumper-stickers they keep dusting off and trying to cram down people's throats. They only ever convince a majority of anything by pretending to be moderates or even leaning right. (ie: Clinton).

When it comes down to it, I'd put conservative ideas on economics up against leftwing crap any day of the week, take it to a vote by a majority of Americans, and the conservative positions (mostly common sense) win out every time vs. the liberal crap (mostly tired class-envy crap.)

So I say bring it on- it'll be the libs quaking in their boots to come to any constitutional convention and try to convince 3/4 of the people to ratify their class-envy/race-baiting/outdated emo-drivel, not conservatives who bring solid, common sense fiscal ideas to the table.

Boy, you sure do a lot of herping and derping. I'm guessing you know nothing about economics and are poorly educated.

 

[OGOC]

lol. You have either never read them or have never understood them. Conservatives in America have radicalized over the last 20 years.

I find the current crop of radicalized conservatives to be almost entirely absent of people who are able to construct coherent arguments, they are mostly just a rage flameout combined with a healthy dose of epistemic closure.

There's a reason why American conservatism has such a bad name, btw. Hence, my list of well reasoned conservatives tends to be old school conservatives, not the new, radicalized form.

Conservatism has a bad name because "conservatism" has been too freely linked to "neoconservatism."

Which conservatives are the "radical" ones again? The ones that don't want to automatically raise the debt ceiling time after time after time just because the government wants to waste more of your money? The ones that do want to stop spending trillions of your children's dollars that your children will have to repay with interest?

Are the "radicals" the ones who don't want the U.S. government spying on them and breaking the Fourth Amendment of The Constitution which is the highest law of the land?

Are the "radicals" the ones who think we should know what's in bills instead of passing them so we can find out what's in them?

Are the "radicals" the ones who think banks shouldn't have gotten bailouts with taxpayer money?

Are the "radicals" the ones who think the U.S. shouldn't be drone bombing its own citizens nor drone bombing little kids at weddings?

Are the "radicals" the ones who think it's unconstitutional to indefinitely detain an American citizen without charge?

Are the "radicals" the ones who don't want to police the world and don't want to bomb Syria over some WMD evidence that everyone except Obama and his cronies say is inconclusive at best? I could go on and on....

Those "non-radicals" sound a lot like Obama and Obama supporters.

 

[OGOC]

Gun control. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA 15 years ago was pro enhanced universal background checks, now righties fly off the wall against the idea.

Foreign policy. Post Bush's war disasters, the right has become more isolationist.

The attacks on women's rights. The attacks on voting rights that mostly affect minorities.

Neither Wayne LaPierre nor the NRA are the leaders of conservatism or of the Republican Party. There's a reason why more people are looking to groups such as Gun Owners of America.

Foreign policy. Wait, so the right wanting to get into fewer wars after Bush means they are "radicalized?" Wouldn't haters of Bush and haters of the Iraq war (which lots of Democrats voted for btw) like that? Not wanting to make the same policing the world mistakes again is considered "radicalized" now? If Republicans haven't become more "isolationist" lately, you'd probably berate them for not being "isolationist" enough.

Attacking women's rights. Because some people don't want to pay for other people's birth control. Come on. Even if we go to the abortion debate, that in pro-life people's opinions is about the rights of the child and the right to life.

Attacks on voting rights. You mean like the Democrats in Rhode Island that passed voter I.D. laws? Those "radical," "racist" Democrats in Rhode Island?

 

[OGOC]

But some of those people who are paying near historically low tax rates

Historically, low tax rates were at zero. Which, funny enough, is what 47% of current "taxpayers" pay in federal income taxes.

And increasing the highest tax brackets won't hurt productivity and in fact won't even affect those top earners ability to spend their money.

Add up all the taxes and fees people pay nowadays. Income tax, sales tax, property tax, phone tax, gas tax, Obamacare tax, I could write another paragraph of these.... That's a lot of money in taxes. It's not like people are only paying income tax. And it's not like people are deducting all sorts of crazy things like they used to be able to do before Reagan ended those deductions.

You could not raise tax rates for the simple reason that it's the right thing to do because it's not the government's money.

Btw, I'd bet the majority of people here paid more income taxes last year than Obama's favorite company GM did.

 

[ivwshane]

Conservatism has a bad name because "conservatism" has been too freely linked to "neoconservatism."

Which conservatives are the "radical" ones again? The ones that don't want to automatically raise the debt ceiling time after time after time just because the government wants to waste more of your money? The ones that do want to stop spending trillions of your children's dollars that your children will have to repay with interest?

Are the "radicals" the ones who don't want the U.S. government spying on them and breaking the Fourth Amendment of The Constitution which is the highest law of the land?

Are the "radicals" the ones who think we should know what's in bills instead of passing them so we can find out what's in them?

Are the "radicals" the ones who think banks shouldn't have gotten bailouts with taxpayer money?

Are the "radicals" the ones who think the U.S. shouldn't be drone bombing its own citizens nor drone bombing little kids at weddings?

Are the "radicals" the ones who think it's unconstitutional to indefinitely detain an American citizen without charge?

Are the "radicals" the ones who don't want to police the world and don't want to bomb Syria over some WMD evidence that everyone except Obama and his cronies say is inconclusive at best? I could go on and on....

Those "non-radicals" sound a lot like Obama and Obama supporters.

They don't sound like anyone in congress I know, you know, if you go by their actual record.

They appreciate that you totally bought their BS lies they spew.

 

[ivwshane]

Historically, low tax rates were at zero. Which, funny enough, is what 47% of current "taxpayers" pay in federal income taxes.


Add up all the taxes and fees people pay nowadays. Income tax, sales tax, property tax, phone tax, gas tax, Obamacare tax, I could write another paragraph of these.... That's a lot of money in taxes. It's not like people are only paying income tax. And it's not like people are deducting all sorts of crazy things like they used to be able to do before Reagan ended those deductions.

You could not raise tax rates for the simple reason that it's the right thing to do because it's not the government's money.

Btw, I'd bet the majority of people here paid more income taxes last year than Obama's favorite company GM did.

I'd ask you if you wanted another cup of kool-aid but after the last few posts I'd say you drank it all

 

[OGOC]

A country that votes in Obama by a combined margin of 14M votes in two Presidential elections is a left-leaning country. Sorry.

Not necessarily since the alternate choice to bailouts, gun-banning, big-spending, policing the world, indefinite detention without charge, drone bombing, Obamacare Obama was bailouts, gun-banning, big-spending, policing the world, indefinite detention without charge, drone bombing, Romneycare Romney.

And before that was progressive McCain who nowadays apparently wants to invade every country he can for as long as he can, and give out amnesty to illegal aliens too. That's funny too since some people in this thread would consider McCain the opposite of "radical" because he's not an "isolationist" on foreign policy. :\

Anyway, back to Mark Levin. Mark Levin is a hustler and a fake. He talks up The Constitution when it suits him, but when he could have endorsed the most constitutional guy in the presidential election, (Ron Paul), he trashed him instead. Levin has done the same to other constitutional candidates in other races too. I'm trying to think of some pretty big Senator race or something where Levin endorsed the big establishment guy instead of the constitutional guy.