Your errors of omission certainly make your attempts at redefinition fail. I must conclude that you are not only calling statism and corruption by themselves “conservative” but also communism/socialism since it has been the status quo in China since 1947.
There is no attempt at redefinition on my part. "Disposed to preserve existing conditions" and "preservative" are both of the same idea as "preserving the status quo," to say otherwise is absurd.
I must conclude that you are not only calling statism and corruption by themselves “conservative” but also communism/socialism since it has been the status quo in China since 1947.
You have it exactly backwards; I'm saying that our government is corrupt and [disposed to] statism... and it is therefore that Obama's actions [and Bush's] have actually been rather conservative. {Where conservative means "to preserve existing conditions"/"preservative".}
That those aren't the ideals espoused by the founding fathers is, quite frankly, irrelevant; those ideals have been seriously erroded to continually give the state more power since long before I was even born. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) said that the government can control anything that impacts commerce; Gonzales v. Raich (2005) further elaborated this saying that even if there is no legitimate market for a substance, that the reasoning in Wicard still applies because otherwise would restrict federal powers; Kelo v. City of New London (2005) likewise put the final nail in the 5th Amendment's restrictions on Eminent Domain by holding that imaginary numbers [projections] for tax revenue increase justified the "public use" clause in the 5th Amendment for giving the land to a private developer [Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) and Berman v. Parker (1954) are cited by Kelo]; and indeed the fourth amendment means virtually nothing given: drunk-driving checkpoints, the TSA, no-knock warrants, SWAT raids; the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments are regularly ignored in courthouses across the land with their prohibitions on firearms [jurors must appear, under penalty of law, and they are disarmed despite not even being accused of a crime].
While these certainly aren't in the spirit of the founding fathers they nonetheless are far more the norm in my lifetime than the stories of freedom I hear from my grandparents and their peers. Did you know that they used to take guns to school? Never have I heard of that being allowed by schools in my lifetime; but hey, that's ok, because the authorities say it's bad, and if the authorities say it then it must be right! [Heavy sarcasm there, FYI.]
What about murdering the unborn? The Democrats are quite for it; but hey, so are the Republicans, given the complete and utter inaction toward repeal/overturn of Roe v Wade (which occurred before I was born). I mean come on, the Republican party had the Legislative and the Executive for most of Bush's term and can't be bothered to even put out a token effort?
Let's get back to guns; when was the last time you heard of a popular Republican say that we should repeal the GCA, or the NFA? Or, hey, did you know that the ATF has lost a case for exercising their regulatory power over new full-auto weapons because they don't allow them to be taxed? So, why aren't people using this ruling as precedent for new manufacture of full-auto weapons? Oh, that's right, it only counts if it's increasing the government's powers.
So, tell me, why should I be for preserv[ing] existing conditions, institutions, etc? Why should I want to conserve these injustices? Why should I consider these to be sufferable evils?
A limited government, an accountable government, a responsible government, a just government: all of these are vastly different than what we have. And, indeed, I doubt that the government has had aught but shadows of reputation for all of those for all of my life.