10% is not equal to 10%?
$10k is not equal to 10k?
Look I can see that you do not understand the conservative position. This is the perfect demonstration of Haidt’s claims.
It is true that some of the founders disapproved of slavery. It is nevertheless also perfectly true that the Constitution as originally written allows slavery.
This is because others of the founders strongly approved of slavery, and very much wanted to be able to keep inflicting it on other people. To say that in general the founders opposed slavery is also disingenuous. To say that the Constitution didn’t allow it, before the 13th amendment, is simply false.
– i also note that even those of the founders who opposed slavery thought that opposing it was less important than holding the states together
Or maybe I do, huh? :dubious:
If you could *answer *the previous question instead of disparaging it, that would go a long way toward confirming your claim to be following a principle.
In fact, no, having to live on $9K vs. $10K makes a vastly greater difference to your life than having to live on $900K vs. $1M. I really don’t believe you *can’t *see that.
The loyalists were a non-entity by 1789. This is like saying the real conservatives today are the Amish.
This seems like the perfect demonstration of someone pivoting from the futile argument that “equal rights for all” is a conservative value, and instead trying to put forth the inane argument that paying an equal amount of taxes based solely on one figure is somehow indicative of “equal rights”, especially when that figure is almost meaningless because of all the various deductions, shelters, and other tax avoidance plans out there.
I do see that it is part of the liberal conception of equal- equal impact on life.
It does not meet the conservative conception of equal- equal amount or equal percentage.
There really are two different definitions of “fair” going on here.
“Equal requirements” do not equal “equal impact.” Conservatives tend to see only or primarily the first (except, one hopes, within their own families; I expect they feed the baby even if the baby has no money, and don’t require Great Grandma to do her share of the lawnmowing after her legs aren’t up to it.) Liberals tend to see only or primarily the second.
I can see both of them; but I lean towards the “equal impact” side. I think it has better practical results. And I think that ignoring it altogether is, um, unfair.
I see. It is inane to suggest that 10k is equal to 10k or 10% is equal to 10%. No. That is how a conservative views equality. They often talk about equality under the law. They think the law should say everyone pays the same percentage or same amount.
Conservatives would say life is not supposed to be “fair” and that it is an arbitrary concept. Or if they have adopted the culturally dominant language of the left, they would say it is not fair that others pay more or that others pay a higher percentage.
Some conservatives actively support and cheer Trump’s actions. That’s not enough to say that all conservative principles are bigoted. Especially if, as in the OP, your argument takes the form of ‘Trump is a conservative, Trump did X, therefore X is conservative. X is bigoted, therefore conservatism is bigoted’.
The National Review is conservative. Before the election they published a special issue that was 100% about why Trump shouldn’t be President. Never Trumpers are also a thing, and they’re only a thing because they’re all conservatives. Their principles are conservative, but they’re evidently not Trump’s principles. Therefore, not all conservative principles are bigoted. And I’m saying this as a lifelong liberal.
Only if everyone had been living like the Amish up until three years ago.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
- Anatole France, describing the conservative mentality better than **Will **has been doing.
“Don’t ask, Don’t tell”. Allowed for the discrimination against gays in the military. Doesn’t mean Clinton was a homophobe. Quite the contrary. It was a step.
The Constitution and the D of I similarly put forth the ideals that were the foundation for the abolishment of slavery.
Every country in existence in 1776 allowed slavery. No country made it illegal until 1808.
To suggest that the founders were pro slavery or that The Constitution encouraged the institution is a bad misreading not supported by the facts nor the contemporaneous writings and statements of its authors.
The motivation of the left to suggest otherwise is divisive and cynical.
Does that little lecture mean you do now accept that the Constitution originally did not establish that all persons have equal rights, despite your earlier claim? :dubious:
So, did the Constitution allow slavery or not?
Pantastic, what is so hard about “No Republican or Democratic president aligns neatly with conservative or liberal values, respectively?” You, and some others, seemed determined to shoehorn Trump into the “everything Trump does represents conservatism” camp at the same time that you would probably promptly acknowledge that presidents like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama by no means neatly line up with liberal-progressivism.
Yes it is clear that a commie is contributing to your understanding of conservative thought.
Apropos of nothing, would like to note the Constitution is silent on the whole “capitalism/socialism/communism” issue as well. I know as I did a search for these words and came up zippo.
They used “f” sometimes for “s”. Did you try capitalifm/socialifm/communifm ?
It’s implicit in “purfuit of happineff”.