What you're forgetting is that "conservative" and "liberal" are relative terms. Compaired to the standards of the day, yes, civil rights and the Magna Carta were liberal. But I (and, I should hope, everyone else here) happen to disagree with the standards of those days. Conservative and liberal are just labels. If the Constitution actually SAID that the US government could do some of the things it does, I'd be considered a liberal, because I'd be against the written standard. Conservatives aren't afraid of change, just changes for the worse.
------------------ "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people . . ." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." - Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1791
posted
In a political sense, basic traditions is more like it. Such as the US Constitution. Conservative would then, in a political sense, be "One who adheres to or defends basic laws". The Bill of Rights hasn't been changed in 200 years, and is still being defended from liberal attacks. Positions may change on some relatively unimportant issues, but the baseline position remains the same as long as the baseline conditions remain the same. Some conservatives may cave, but conservatism itself is still the same principle.
------------------ "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people . . ." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." - Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1791
posted
Sol, you are quite right in your definition of historic liberalism; to be sure, the time from the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution formed the bookends for some of the great liberal movements. Save for that period of the Congress of Vienna during which Klemens von Metternich represented a halt in the forward movement of humanity.
While I could quibble that the DOI was not the foundation of the United States and that the Constitution with it's provisions for slavery was not all that it could be. I prefer to stand with your statment in general as well considered and argued. The current climate of political liberalism owes much to its roots in historical liberalism.
While there is much, and I say again, much I disagree with about Omega's previous posts, liberalism is a movement for humanity, ecology, and civil rights. And that stance puts liberal idology square in the path of modern business and it's do anything for a buck attitude. I find it quite disturbing that someone can argue that business only makes its money from the leavings of the horrid regulating government and stands at the mercy of those poor people who work.
Simply, the founders of the United States were the wealthy elite of the colonies. As such the Constitution they wrote was meant to protect their rights. While the Constitution represented a great step forward for humanity it contined provisions for the protection of slavery. The basic civil rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were not fully granted until the 1960's. And even today, there are serious challenges to those rights from the right-wing.
It quite clear that the founders first and foremost intended to protect the primacy of their wealth. Moreover as business today continues to get enormous tax breaks and coporate welfare, the the primacy of the American government is still to protect the rights of the wealthy and to provide as many institutionalized ways as possible for them to keep it and to rake in more.
------------------ The watchdog of public safety, is there any lower form of life? ~C. Mongomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited October 21, 1999).]
posted
You're talking semantics, Sol (but you aren't the only one). I have identified myself as conservative before. Almost everyone here knows I do not endorse dragging minorities behind pickup trucks, cutting down the rainforests, and bettering my own lot at the expense of children, the homeless, or any other group to which I do not currently belong.
What I said in another thread about "Christian" or "Atheist" is just as applicable to "Conservative" and "Liberal". Don't shoot someone down because the words he used to describe something are the same words you use to describe something you hate. Unless the person who is talking to you is a sociopath, they very likely understand the hated term to mean something completely different than you do. Find out what the words mean to them. Otherwise you are being just as bigoted as you accuse conservatives of being.
posted
Interestingly enough, I've never mentioned anything at all about conservatives being bigoted, or being anything at all BESIDES conservative, which I then defined. Still, I suppose it is much more fun to read what others want me to have said, rather then what I actually did say. Much better then actually listening to me. God knows I try to avoid myself.
------------------ "Quadrilateral I was, now I warp like a smile." -- Soul Coughing
posted
Yes Sol that's always fun to know if people listen or not. On the other hand I don't listen, I quote which is way more fun that actually listening .
Actually Jay I have a bone to pick with your statement "The basic civil rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were not fully granted until the 1960's. And even today, there are serious challenges to those rights from the right-wing."
Wrong, the First 10 Amendments known as the bill of rights only gurantee what the Federal government can't do to us, not the states. In fact while the Supreme Court has extended most of the Constitutional protection of the 1-10 + 14 Amendment (btw the stuff in the 60 actually mainly covered the 14 and not the rest of the amendments). However not all of the rights gurantteed by the Bill of Rights have been extended to the what the states can't do, most notably the 2 amendment. Actually it would not the be unconstitutional for any state to ban the right to bear arms, because that right hasn't been extended to the people by the Supreme Court. O yes and by the way I believe the fact there is some on the left that wish to end our 2 Amendment rights makes your second statement ironic, sure there are folks on both side that what to take away our Constitutional rights.
If you want I can reseach this and show exactly which rights have been extended. ------------------ Pinky we will so rule the world...as soon as I figure out what step 2 is.
[This message has been edited by HMS White Star (edited October 21, 1999).]
posted
HMS your assertion that my argument should extent to the other amendments outside of the Bill of Rights is correct. And yet a hundred or so years is a great deal of time to wait for the rights granted in the 14th Amendment to be fulfilled.
And never let it be said I stood in the way of research...only lets have full bibliographic citations.
------------------ The watchdog of public safety, is there any lower form of life? ~C. Mongomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited October 21, 1999).]
posted
No Jay you don't understand, I taking about the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has never extended all the rights of the Bill of Rights to the American people, only a select few...Research follows. The reason why is simply they want the power that comes with that (btw any rights they have extended they can also retract). Ok it may take me a while but I still think I have the book that told me that a real response will come tomorrow.
------------------ Pinky we will so rule the world...as soon as I figure out what step 2 is.
posted
Somehow we've strayed from the point, which was that the necessity of testing newer, bigger, and better nukes is questionable.
We know our theories are sound. We know the equipment works. We know the delivery systems work up to specifications. We know how many rads and kilotons and fallout each type of big BOOM makes. We've known all this for a couple decades, now.
What the hell more do they want?
(Okay, maybe there should be a provision in the treaty allowing for someone building an "Orion" (the spaceship driven by nuclear explosions). But how many countries are actually going to make one?)
------------------ 'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson
posted
Noone with nukes today would waste them on something as constructive as propulsion. Far more sound to incinerate a couple of million foreigners....
------------------ "FOOLS! Will I have to kill them ALL?!?!"
posted
The concept of "Nukes for Peace" (peaceful uses other than blowing up cities and military targets, that is) has been bandied about almost from the moment the first A-bomb was detonated.
I provide the following links for those interested in further reading:
Of course, every time the concept has been advanced, someone pointed out that the environmental damage would negate the advantages of using such a "nuclear demolition" charge.
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
