The following post is an editorial, a continuation of a post made Friday. These are Mr. Maganzini's views, not necessarily those of all of us here at the Étudiant. The sole purpose of the image to the left is to provide a visual.
1. Are the Founding Fathers to be taken literally?
Democrats argue that the earliest principles of the United States (a la The Constitution) are not to be taken literally. Republicans say "whatever is on their is my right....whatever isn't....well isn't". Republicans you seem to have won.....but not so fast. While rights such as the one where we can bear arms is certainly debatable, other rights such as gay marriage are just wrong. So should they be taken literally? The "True Conservative" (whom is always right) says yes, but with an italicized question mark?
2. So about the Gov't..........
Democrats assert that the Gov't (Government, of course) has all the rights in the world to use your money in any way shape or form. Republicans say "This is my money, you guys shouldn't worry about it too much. Ah, the too much is where Republicans fail and where the "True Conservative" wins. In a truly conservative society, the government and your money are not compatible and privatized education, health care, et al exist.
3. Can you be your own self in a traditional sense?
Democrats say "No, we are in the 2000s, we can make all our decisions for ourself! Mwahahahah!" Republicans believe that the traditional family unit is something that has been preserved over the centuries and should be valued. The "True Conversative" says that both of these can be accomplished. The traditional family unit is something that paves the way for a future of individuality and responsibility. Once we are able to reach a certain age (21), we can then make our own decisions based on our childhood experiences. And yes, that means no gay marriage. Point goes to the "True Conservative"
HALF TIME - True Conservative [3] vs. All Other Parties [0]
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Part 2 - The True Conservative
Labels:
election 2006,
opinion
1 comment:
Your comments are valued greatly. Please adhere to the decorum on the "First time here?" page. Comments that are in violation of any of the rules will be deleted without notice.
3/11 Update - No Moderation
*Non-anonymous commenting is preferred to avoid mix-ups. Anonymous comments are, at the behest of management, more likely to be deleted than non-anonymous comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whether or not a Republican would know the difference between "their" and "there" aside, I disagree. Though a conservative Republican may be more supportive of a law choking social liberty(sodomy(oral, heterosexual doggie style), homosexuality, drug use), the central Republican tenet of small government should lend to a Republican understanding that 'unless it's outlawed, it's lawful.' Take Teddy Roosevelt. A macho Republican's wet dream. He expanded Presidential power by taking whatever executive action he wished, unless specifically restricted by the Constitution. He was a strong leader. Other, girly-man Presidents have worked only with what the Constitution explicitly told them to do, but they got less done and were less cool. Hell, President George W. Bush is SO cool that he not only expands his powers by doing things not explicitly prohibited, but even conducting ILLEGAL wiretapping and lying to the world to further his administration's agenda! What a man!
ReplyDeleteI don't see how the Second Amendment is debatable. It's clean-cut and logical. Was then, is now.
I'd like an explanation of why gay marriage is wrong.