Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I wish she would wait three more years.
Why? So the next appointee can be even more liberal, thus strengthening this eminent domain crap decision?
Sandra was a swing vote who dissented on the ED vote. Bush replacing her is a GOOD thing. Replace her with a liberal judge and you can kiss your proerty rights goodbye forever.
If there were REAL Liberals on the court you'd have your property rights in a flash. It was originally the Liberals who INSISTED on property rights as the foundation of all other Civil Rights.
Today's "Liberals" are more or less Socialists, not Liberals at all. Today's Conservatives are pretty much still Conservatives, and they NEVER cared about individual rights or Civil Liberties.
Jason
You start off good, then go down hill fast.
Conservatives do care about civil liberties and individual rights.
I give you the 2nd Amendment.
Property rights.
Opposition to nanny state laws.
And most importantly, economic freedom.
Look at it this way, modern "liberals" want to save you from yourself by restricting your risk. Modern conservatives (of the religious right) want to save your soul by limiting your sins.
It's 6 of one, a half dozen of another. The only real issue is, who's ideology is winning, and therefore a greater danger to our freedom?
Right now, that would be the modern "liberal" nanny-state. The religious right seldom makes any real headway. But the nanny-state, socialist left has been making great strides in restricting our freedoms.
One final shot:
Many modern conservatives fully supported the civil rights movement of the 60s. Charlton Heston marched with MLK. Ronald Reagan was a huge supporter as well.
To say conservatives oppose civil liberties is absurd.
You belie your ignorance, my friend. ATM, the religious right is winning great strides in the United States. Bush's re-election is evidence of this, as are the absurd cases of Terry Schiavo and the current ranting proclaiming America a "Christian Nation", which is absurd and untrue.
Conservatives are NOT against "Nanny state" laws at all. They differ on WHICH items the state should rule over your personal life in than the "Liberals" (who, I'll point out again, are NOT Liberal. In fact the far left are closer to Socialists than they are to Liberals), but they are in NO WAY against the Nanny State. They want to legislate with whom you can sleep, who you may love and be married to, whether or not Husbands and Wives have say over the fateof their incapacitated spouses and whether you can burn a FLAG.
The only Civil Liberty that Conservatives tend historically to uphold is in fact that of economic Liberty, and even at that they are erratic and inconsistent. Men like Robert Bork are an excellent example of Conservatism's *hatred* for Individual Liberty, for what some call "the Self-Directed Life". For these people, freedom to choose and think and act and be an individual are corrosive to Societal stability, and they prefer to legislate your "morality" and enforce it.
I'll point you to an excellent series of articles comparing and contrasting Liberalism and Conservatism
here by Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Tim Sandefur. He's an expert on constitutional law and moral philsophy, as well as an astoundingly astute historian and expert on the Founding Fathers. I've personally been acquainted with Mr. Sandefur for more than 15 years, and there are few opinions I respect as highly as his.
As for Ronald Reagan, perhaps you are unaware that he *wrote* and *published* that people should be free to use drugs if they wish, but that they should *choose* not to as a matter of morality?
Again, Conservatives are NOT about Civil Liberties, they are about maintaining their vision of a "stable" Society. Freedom and Stability are NOT friends; freedom *creates* turbulence as a necessary consequence of the fact that it doesn't attempt to cease the natural motion of life.
Jason