user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes
I've read that he was a civil liberties conservative.
Voted : Yes
Ah Barry Goldwater the last real conservative out there, he understood that keeping the government out of the individuals life doesn't just mean cutting taxes and social services,it also means that the government stays out of the buisness of religion and imposing Christian values on all of it's citizens.
Unfortunately Ronald Regan brought the religious right in during the 80's and they have been running the party ever since.It's time for real conservatives to vote Libertarian in 08.
Voted : Yes
Man had his brain in place and functioning.
Voted : Yes
Yes I do and i imagine he will be shot soon.
Had to come back to revel in the simplistic beauty of those words. I just joined a horde of particulary virulent neos in a news chat, Felix. Mind if I borrow these words to hammer them with? Only into unconsciousness, I promise.
Truthseeker013:
Yes, please by all means, let them have it. It's like showing a pack of neocons the medusa's head: they all just freeze immediately and grow so deathly still with their rants. In their hearts, they know he's right.
I'm currently reading J. William Middendorf's "A Glorious Disaster: Barry Goldwater's Presidential Campaign and the Origins of the Conservative Movement." I'd read "The Conscience of a Conservative" years ago, but I'm just now rejoining Goldwater and appreciating him more. I'm sure that he'd love to see Ron Paul featured so prominently in the 2008 Republican presidential candidate debates and speaking so articulately.
"Ah Barry Goldwater the last real conservative out there, he understood that keeping the government out of the individuals life doesn't just mean cutting taxes and social services,it also means that the government stays out of the buisness of religion and imposing Christian values on all of it's citizens."
Very articulately spoken, and I couldn't agree more with the sentiments expressed, although I think that there have been several other prominent conservatives of his stripe speaking and writing publicly since his heyday.
Unfortunately, they bailed out of the current ruling Republican coalition years ago...
I love Goldwater.
"Yes I do and i imagine he will be shot soon."
He's already dead
^That's one way to avoid getting shot.
He did talk about states' rights during the Civil Rights movement, though.
Yes, he did, and I tend to agree with him about states' sovereignty versus federal domination, even when it sometimes means the states behave despicably. I'm not convinced the feds always behave so honorably, either, and it's much easier to reign in a state government locally. If the people of that state vote for villains, then they get the bad governance and pariah status they deserve.
Slow down Felix don't you think that civil rights and liberties triumph state sovereignty?The way I see it is that any government,whether it be local,state or national is illegimate if it violates it's citizens rights and thus surrenders any sovereignty it has.You say that it is easier to reign in corrupt state government locally well what if the majority of the people in that state support the violation of the right of the minority by the state government?Should the minority just sit by and wait until the majority comes along?
How often has the federal government violated the same civil rights of its citizens and of other parties? Indian policy and removal was directed in the main by the feds. So were communist witch hunts. In the 1920's, the federal Congress deliberately squelched several attempts at passing anti-lynching legislation and, not, from what I've read, due solely to Southern pressure. The federal government has often been quite lax in environmental law enforcement, when the states would take a more proactive role (which is allowed them by the delegation powers of the U.S. Constitution). I could provide dozens more of such examples, if time permitted. I think you've far too much faith in the inherent goodness of the federal government over the states.
The fact is, the federal government has consistently been overreaching itself versus the states since the Civil War. I'm convinced that, in the original sense of the Constitution itself and the preceding Articles of Confederation, that states should, in most areas, save foreign policy, general taxation, etc., retain the most powers. It's easy to take something that appears to be a clear moral prerogative--equal civil rights--and become emotional over the issue, but I don't feel that dictating a morally proper result to the individual states was the best method for dealing with this problem. By the early 1960's, many Southern states were already subject to large organized economic boycotts that were damaging their economies. Some of the earliest desegregation cases note the Commerce Clause as a major concern, because of the fact that these states were actually causing a major disruption in the national economy by that time.
To make use of an international example, economic isolation and organized international pressure had just as much to do with ending Apartheid in South Africa as any internal resistance. There are many such ways of dealing with a bad actor, if the will power and resolve exists in the outside opposition. I think that this would've been the proper way to deal with states that were violating their own citizens' rights. The states could've continued to resist, but, by the early 1960's, it was obvious to most of the political and social elite in those states, that they would be wrecking their own economies and social structure even further if they continued.
Goldwater was great!!!!
|
|
