If the Conservative Movement succeeds then What? My response!

I'd like to see an emphasis on the protection of medical freedom. Anyone should be allowed to practice any medical procedure without any license as long as the lack of official approval was made clear to the patient. Additionally a business should be allowed to make any claim whatsoever about the medicinal benefits of a product that they sell. And an individual should be allowed to practice any procedure on themselves or consume whatever medicine they choose.

Some of these stipulations may seem drastic to some, but I am making them under the premise that it is not and it should not be the governments role to take a patriarchal approach in trying to protect the citizens from themselves. I'm also making these stipulations in the context of a history in this country of Naturopathic Doctors being persecuted for practicing without a license and the FDA raiding and shutting down businesses for making what the FDA considered to be false claims.

Originally posted by links234
So here's what's going to happen: The rhetoric and grandstanding of Fox news will reach an incredible high...maybe some bill will be passed, or proposed or some incident will occur that will galvanize the patriots. The right wing media will continue its rhetoric and derision of the elected officials and our supposed corrupt government.

In 2010 tea party patriot candidates will be elected, but only in very small numbers. This trend will continue until 2016, when the tea party starts gaining more ground and more seats. Once a majority is held, possibly before 2020, they will take over our corrupted government and begin enacting new sovreignty laws and abolishing long held laws that are deemed too socialist for the New America.

At this point it's too late for us, the patriot's have taken back their America and we begin where the nazi's began. The Germany of the 1920's was considered liberal, only after the nazi's started claiming power did the nation become more conservative to the point of totalitarinist fascism.

So go on patriots, I look forward to what you think you can provide, or take away from, our once great nation.

Had to quote your post in case you decide to come back and edit because I point out your errors.

1) Great Straw Man Argument there.

2) Tea Partiers need not have to pass sovereignty laws there. We have the GREATEST sovereignty laws ever written. Do you have any idea of even anything you talk about?

3) Tea Partiers are Totalitarianistic? Are you mad? Taxed Enough Already and government control is what they are about.

You get the 1ST OFF TOPIC POST award. And great big idiocy medal to go along with it.

How about addressing the topic or are you just here to try to derail.

AS FOR ALL OTHER OFF TOPIC AND HERE TO CAUSE DERISION-I HEREBY WILL NOT ADDRESS ANY OF YOU

GOT IT?

reply to post by gandhi


OFF TOPIC AND DIVISIVE

reply to post by rusethorcain


OFF TOPIC AND DIVISIVE

with a little edge of idiocy

reply to post by seethelight


So you just come in and say what exactly?

Get that foot out of your mouth.

[edit on 1/3/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by littlebunny


You know I have been thinking about this idea for quite a few years. I hate to bring it out of the brain closet.

It may get me thrown into the loony bin, but hear me out.

To get the right to vote people must-

We require the people to pass a test. This test is always the same. You must get a 90% or higher for you to get the right to vote. It must be done every 4 years. You can take it as many times as you like.

It is only about two things, The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

What do you think?

It would require involvement in government if you would actually want to vote. It would make people learn what their freedoms are about. This would also clear the way of illegals or people that do not understand what our country is about. Also no ID's required. Once you pass you get a non identifying card that is numbered specifically for that 4 year period.

Hmmmm?

Originally posted by ~Vixen~
Just a few thoughts...

* Nullification of all congressional perks;
* Enact real term limitations;
* Tie congressional pay to the average wage earned in each congressional district.
Real term limitations, no lifetime perks, and wages based on the average wage in each district would, in my opinion, promote a congress that worked for OUR benefit rather than for the benefit of corporations and other entities.

Pertaining to your points-

12. Corporations are not people they will not be given the same rights as people.edit add-Therefore people can lobby but corporations cannot.

14. Term limits, balanced budget, lobbyists, pac removal and other measures will be installed to control out of control career criminals.

Stipulations such as yours I would have added but I can no longer edit my first post.

All good points you bring up, thanks for your participation.

edit to fix gramma

[edit on 1/3/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by links234

In 2010 tea party patriot candidates will be elected, but only in very small numbers. This trend will continue until 2016, when the tea party starts gaining more ground and more seats. Once a majority is held, possibly before 2020, they will take over our corrupted government and begin enacting new sovreignty laws and abolishing long held laws that are deemed too socialist for the New America.

At this point it's too late for us, the patriot's have taken back their America and we begin where the nazi's began. The Germany of the 1920's was considered liberal, only after the nazi's started claiming power did the nation become more conservative to the point of totalitarinist fascism.

Actually, I think links234 brings up a good point. The only thing is that there are missing components from his/her argument. The missing component (and the important point here) is that the only reason Hitler was allowed to become a totalitarian dictator was through Germany's accepted use of Presidential decree, issued under Article 48 of their 1919 Weimar constitution. This definitely sounds eerily familiar to our now accepted use of Presidential Executive Orders doesn't it?

This is a very dangerous practice as you can see, and I thank links 234 for almost bringing it up. His/her comment definitely reminded me of why it is mandatory that Presidential Executive Orders are outlawed. They have increasingly become more legislative in their nature and the opportunity for abuse is very great.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

I just feel a little leery because it will then become a stipulation to be a citizen in this country. Whereas right now, a natural born citizen is one, not because of any circumstances other than he was born in a Free State or territory of our Nation (including bases on foreign land). That person doesn't have to take a test, doesn't have to pay allegiance, just breathe in the air of freedom.

I don't see where voting should be a stipulation of citizenship even though it is my opinion that perhaps, PERHAPS, it should be mandatory. I kind of, KIND OF, like the idea of fines... but nothing along the lines of jail time or revocation of citizenship.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by endisnighe

 

Conserve what?
What are you trying to conserve?

Originally posted by seethelight
A few things:

Many of these ideas are contradictory - governments regulates some industries literally to death and remove all regulations on other - that's completely arbritary

Much of this isn't strictly conservative...

Finally, the Conservative movement ran America for decades and into the ground... that's what'll happen if they regain power.

I believe that Jean Paul Zodeaux was actually replying to your posts through his reply to endisnighe. I just wanted to make sure that you saw that. I particularly like the following quote:

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I am fairly certain in my assumption that what the O.P. means by conservative is to conserve the Constitution. In this regard, any liberal movement is as equally valid as any conservative movement. Both are simply two sides of the same coin, that coin being the U.S. government, federal, state and local. If there were no one taking a liberal view of the Constitution then there would be no need for a conservative movement. There will always be people taking a liberal view of the Constitution regardless of which Constitution is in place and how carefully it is constructed.

…

Terms such as "neo-conservative" are nothing more than phrases of artfulness created to further confuse and confound a person. Even the terms conservative and liberal are terms that have evolved over time and have come to mean something entirely different to people in the U.S. than they mean to people outside of the U.S. and even then, inside the U.S. these terms mean whatever they mean to each person. Hence, we have people who will claim to be "fiscal conservatives" and "socially liberal", whatever that means.

Humans tend to label things in order to make sense of things. Sometimes these labels confuse things as well. Very nicely written Jean Paul…


[edit on 3/1/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


I think links is try to derail the thread.

I am not going to spend time on arguing with someone that portrays this movement as Nazi.

Please do not fall into their trap. Do not even acknowledge their Fallacy.

It is like someone comparing Obama to Hitler.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by littlebunny

 

You know I have been thinking about this idea for quite a few years. I hate to bring it out of the brain closet.

It may get me thrown into the loony bin, but hear me out.

To get the right to vote people must-

We require the people to pass a test. This test is always the same. You must get a 90% or higher for you to get the right to vote. It must be done every 4 years. You can take it as many times as you like.

It is only about two things, The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

What do you think?

It would require involvement in government if you would actually want to vote. It would make people learn what their freedoms are about. This would also clear the way of illegals or people that do not understand what our country is about. Also no ID's required. Once you pass you get a non identifying card that is numbered specifically for that 4 year period.

Hmmmm?

No... citizen rights should never be taken away. Instead, make it mandatory (yes, I said MANDATORY) that in order to graduate from high school, you must have taken and passed a MEANINGFUL civics class. The key point here would be the use of the word "meaningful", of course... It's about education, not striping rights...

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


What do you think of my idea of tests?

If you want to vote, you have to pass a knowledge test of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Of course this would make people want to vote, anything that requires you to do something to be part of government, would make people want to participate.

e.g.-How dare they make me pass a test?

I find it manipulative but it could work.


edit to add-

Oops you already covered that, Okay.

I was trying to come up with something that would inspire people to participate.

[edit on 1/3/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

I think links is try to derail the thread.

I am not going to spend time on arguing with someone that portrays this movement as Nazi.

Please do not fall into their trap. Do not even acknowledge their Fallacy.

It is like someone comparing Obama to Hitler.

But you do have to acknowledge the similarities of our situation now with pre-Nazi Germany. Learn from history and use that learning to make sure it doesn't happen again. Perhaps he/she is trying to derail but, in honesty, I was glad for the fact that what he/she said brought up this very important point. The fallacy would be in not acknowledging this very real threat.

What do you think about outlawing Presidential Executive Orders? I think it is absolutely necessary and can see no downside.


[edit on 3/1/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by endisnighe

 

Conserve what?
What are you trying to conserve?

Originally posted by seethelight
A few things:

Many of these ideas are contradictory - governments regulates some industries literally to death and remove all regulations on other - that's completely arbritary

Much of this isn't strictly conservative...

Finally, the Conservative movement ran America for decades and into the ground... that's what'll happen if they regain power.

I believe that Jean Paul Zodeaux was actually replying to your posts through his reply to endisnighe. I just wanted to make sure that you saw that. I particularly like the following quote:

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I am fairly certain in my assumption that what the O.P. means by conservative is to conserve the Constitution. In this regard, any liberal movement is as equally valid as any conservative movement. Both are simply two sides of the same coin, that coin being the U.S. government, federal, state and local. If there were no one taking a liberal view of the Constitution then there would be no need for a conservative movement. There will always be people taking a liberal view of the Constitution regardless of which Constitution is in place and how carefully it is constructed.

…

Terms such as "neo-conservative" are nothing more than phrases of artfulness created to further confuse and confound a person. Even the terms conservative and liberal are terms that have evolved over time and have come to mean something entirely different to people in the U.S. than they mean to people outside of the U.S. and even then, inside the U.S. these terms mean whatever they mean to each person. Hence, we have people who will claim to be "fiscal conservatives" and "socially liberal", whatever that means.

Humans tend to label things in order to make sense of things. Sometimes these labels confuse things as well. Very nicely written Jean Paul…


[edit on 3/1/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]

Thanks for pointing that out. My other point still stands.

There would have to be a over-riding theme for a revolution to work.

Mayn people would say: Less government - Not less of some kinds of government.

Others would say: More regulation - Not just some regulation on things I disagree with.

Like all things political, the OPs biases shine through his attempt at calculated reason... that's just politics for you.

A few other points:

The vast majority of this will never ever happen. Too many people have vested interests that contradict these very (in most cases) idealistic aims.

What America needs is to be broken up into manageable units. There is no history of sustainable nations the size of the US.

That should tell us were going the wrong direction.

reply to post by QtheQ


I believe you are correct in that as well.

I feel it would be covered in a couple of my components.

1. Reinstate the Constitution; any and all statutes that restrict or go against the given rights of the States or the Citizens are instantly abolished.

Partly covered in the initial component.

16. Corporate laws and regulations will be completely reassessed. And ALL CORPORATE LAWS PERTAINING TO CITIZEN'S WILL BE REMOVED!

Partly covered in this component.

21. All federal licensing, regulations, permitting will be abolished if not directly related to interstate commerce.

Definitely covered in this component.

Thanks for your interest. I feel most people's problems with today's environment in the US would be addressed if we just stepped back to the original intentions of the US Constitution. Freedom and Liberty provides most everything we need to govern ourselves.

Thanks for your participation in my thread.

One final point... any REAL movement would have to be seperate form the fake Tea-Baggers/Fox News propaganda nonsense... which of course means no Sarah Palin or birthers.

Reality dictates that these fringers could NEVER be mainstream and real change needs popular support.

reply to post by seethelight


See the light.

I am on here to learn.

Can you teach or are you here to demean.

Yes, I have biases. Do you not, or are you not human?

I would go into a long diatribe but give me a run down on what you disagree with.

I am amiable to listen to anything. Are you?

I have modified my original post when people point out my folly in my reasoning.

I am a very absorbent individual when it comes to ideas, that is why I am so good at what I do.

As I said, I am here to learn, CAN YOU TEACH?

Originally posted by seethelight
Thanks for pointing that out. My other point still stands.

There would have to be a over-riding theme for a revolution to work.

Mayn people would say: Less government - Not less of some kinds of government.

Others would say: More regulation - Not just some regulation on things I disagree with.

Like all things political, the OPs biases shine through his attempt at calculated reason... that's just politics for you.

A few other points:

The vast majority of this will never ever happen. Too many people have vested interests that contradict these very (in most cases) idealistic aims.

What America needs is to be broken up into manageable units. There is no history of sustainable nations the size of the US.

That should tell us were going the wrong direction.

You are correct about "What America needs is to be broken up into manageable units. There is no history of sustainable nations the size of the US." and that is the reason for returning the majority of the governing of this country to the states. The federal government has far overstepped it's constitutional boundaries. As I said earlier:

In case you haven't noticed I am very much in favor of states' rights. I believe it to be one of the most important tenants of the constitution. I also believe that states' rights are slowly being taken away little by little. The only thing the federal government should be responsible for are things (commerce, infrastructure, defense, etc.) that must cross state lines. The constitution limits state powers but limits federal powers even more stringently because of the distance factor - the distance from the ultimate holders of power, the people. We don't realize how much has been taken from us because we are used to the way things are now. This may seem radical but it was always the intention of the constitution. We've really been degraded.

Originally posted by seethelight
One final point... any REAL movement would have to be seperate form the fake Tea-Baggers/Fox News propaganda nonsense... which of course means no Sarah Palin or birthers.

Reality dictates that these fringers could NEVER be mainstream and real change needs popular support.

It does seem bleak, doesn't it? I have to agree that the "public" people thus far (Sara Palin, etc. and even Ron Paul) cannot be the ones leading this. Too much baggage for me, at least.

[edit on 3/1/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]

reply to post by endisnighe

We require the people to pass a test. This test is always the same. You must get a 90% or higher for you to get the right to vote. It must be done every 4 years. You can take it as many times as you like.

I think when you fill out your w2 and pay a sales tax on anything, that is test enough to be able to vote, provided you are a citizen. Elitism sucks. People can make informed decisions even if they are uneducated and can't read a word.

You showed your true colors with that one!!

I think you want an Elite social class to run the show. It's worked great so far, you intellectual snob.

I don't care if you like the comparison or not....That's what transpired in Nazi Germany with the Aryans and the Master Race. That worked out well didn't it?


















[edit on 3-1-2010 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa


Elitism, excuse me?

You get to take the test as many times as you like.

Instead of making voting mandatory. Trying to get people involved.

How would you try to get everyone involved?