Hentor, I don’t want to hijack this thread any further, but I didn’t want you to think your comments had gone unnoticed, so I’ll just direct you to this very nice analysis of James Woods’ incredible acting range. (I didn’t write the thing, in fact, I only found it today as a result of this thread, so thanks!)
A lot of people “call” themselves “conservatives”, but are NOT.
It is still a free country, and you can call yourself anything you want to, but that does not make it so.
You can call yourself a gas station, but that does not mean that my car engine will run on whatever liquid streams out of you.
Anyone who “calls” themselves a “conservative” and does not believe in the United States government, does not believe in the Constitution, and does not believe in the Bill of Rights, is no conservative!!!
, any more than someone who calls himself a fundamentalist christian but yet does not know the Bible, does not believe the Bible, has not studied the Bible, and does not know or understand what the Bible says.
I realize the fact that you have “heard of” Michael Moore’s film makes you a formidable expert on the issue, but if I may:
Michael Moore has been a member of the NRA since he was a child. He won sharpshooting contests as a teen-ager, and he is a former gun-safety instructor.
At no point in the movie does Moore ever try to make a case for gun prohibition, in fact he specifically dismisses gun ownership as being a root cause for violent crime.
When you say that “…it is clear that he has no understanding of guns, nor the causes of crime/murder.” what are you basing it on? What specific knowledge do you actually possess as to what Michael Moore does or does not know vis a vis guns and crime.
Just so you know, Moore never CLAIMS to know the reason that Americans are violent. That is the POINT of the film. He is just asking QUESTIONS.
I see you’re new here, but when you’re in GD you can’t just talk out of your ass, as you seem to be fond of doing, without showing at least some minimal support.
Yeah, ideological consistency can be a pain in the ass.
I’d like to hear your answer to spoke’s question about marijuana legalization.
Susanann:
Just this: Is the right to privacy one of those unenumerated rights? What are some other rights the Framers had in mind as retained by the people?
by Susanna
This sounds a little bit like religious dogmatism to me. How do you know what the Founding Fathers–hallowed be thy name, 'til Kingdom come–thought centuries ago? In all honesty, they’re probably doing cartwheels in their gaves right now because two black people are in the cabinent and women actually populate the senate and house. A true conservative would be relunctant to add amendments that involve changing the system. Wouldn’t a true conservative strive to keep the country’s government just as the Framers envisioned? Which was, in all likelihood, white and masculine?
To tell you the truth, I’ve never before heard a better explication of No True Scotsman. Right on the money.
Anyone remember the movie Demolition Man?
Admittedly, no one can know for certain what Bush’s motives are for wanting to go to war with Iraq. But since he won’t be specific, I can’t blame anyone for speculating. I don’t think that these celebrities have presented themselves as experts, but they are smart enough to take advantage of their fame in order to steer the country away from a war with Iraq. If I had the ear of the masses, I would speak up too! I never objected to John Wayne or Jimmy Steward speaking out and I’m not going to start objecting now that I agree with what is being said.
We really can’t go to war without knowing the reason why, can we???
Keep in mind that it wasn’t just Bush’s father who was in danger. Laura Bush was travelling with the elder President Bush at the time of the assassination attempt and probably would have be a victim if the attempt had been successful. Even if it is just sub-consciously, I would think that that is* likely* to weigh on Bush’s mind.
Mike Farrell said:
I agree. It is damn well inappropriate! Who could disagree with that? The question is, is that what the administration is doing? I think that Mr. Farrell has more carefully chosen his words than Mr. Sheen.
I do not consider Senator Fred Thompson to be a Conservative. And I say that from a liberal viewpoint As for his career changes, actually, he was an attorney first. (During the Watergate hearings he served as counsel to Sen. Howard Baker. He is the one who asked the question which exposed that conversations in the Oval Office had been taped.) He became a hero to a lot of people when he helped to bring down the person who was arguably the State of Tennessee’s most corrupt governor. (I confess, it was a Democrat.) When a movie was made about the woman who exposed the corruption, attorney Fred Thompson played himself. He must have been convincing because he continued with acting roles until he decided to run for the Senate. He lost his daughter in the last year or so and I don’t think he has had the heart for politics since then. He is still a Senator for another month or so but he has also returned to acting. He is conservative on many issues but moderate on most. I don’t think that you have seen the last of him in Washington. [/that particular hijack]
Two of them would be Jews. I think not.
And they would carry muskets.
Wow! Three stereotypes in one sentence!
Do you feel that you are typical of Conservatives?
Susannan, are there other colors than black and white in your world?
—I dont know what your strict constructionists think, but we do know what the founding fathers thought, and we agree with them. Are you saying those who agree with the ideas of George Washington, and his buddies, are not conservatives?—
I agree with most of them (not things like the legality of slavery, obviously), and I’m not by any means a conservative. I have no vision of a particular social order I think is best: other than a social order which allows people, as much as possible, to pursue their own ideals of happiness.
Of course, the founders weren’t all of one mind about everything, even the Bill of Rights. And they set up a system that allowed people to amend the constitution. So it’s not strictly true at all that people who think some of the Bill of Rights are misguided are going against the explicit will of the founders.
Susanann wrote:
Thank you! 
[country talk]
Arguing with a libertarian is kinda like wrasslin’ with a pig. After a few hours ya realize the pig likes it.
[/country talk]
And then the intelligent squid make an appearance and suddenly your party is totally ruined and you can’t quite figure out who’s to blame…
Susanann said:
Then Muad’Dib said:
You mean the Demolition Man which starred Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes? I’m missing the connection to Schwarzenegger.
The movie featured a moment where Stallone looks bemused upon discovering that Schwarzeneggar was President while he was on ice. At the same time the US becomes a benevolent police state, more or less.
Hey, you’re the one who said the ACLU doesn’t understand the 9th Amendment. How are they getting it wrong, in your view?
And more to the point, how does the 9th Amendment fit with your (apparent) view that the Constitution is inflexible, except by further amendment? Do you consider the rights listed in the Bill of Rights to be an exhaustive list of all the rights we have? Or do you take the 9th Amendment at face value and accept that there are other rights not specifically listed, but which we still retain (such as, perhaps, a right to privacy)?
(And on another matter, why didn’t you answer my earlier question about legalization of marijuana?)
(And does supporting the 2nd Amendment make me a “conservative”? Even if I also believe in social security, a progressive income tax, environmental regulation, the estate tax, corporate regulation, anti-trust laws, the Civil Rights Act, etc., etc., etc.?)