A few questions....

Is this a DUmmie troll?

1. 9/11

2. Survival against the Islamofascist war against Western civilization. A belief in reality over fantasy and phony utopianism.

4. No.

7. Stupid question. Deal with reality.

8. None

10. Ridiculous, condescending statement/question.

1. Simply observation of the world around me best describes it. There was no great moment, just a gradual realization that we are responsible for ourselves. We can not be totally dependant on “The Government” for our every need, be it personal safety or housing.

2. Family values and patriotism would have to be at the top of the list.

3. I think it has always been there, but has been fairly silent. The liberal movement took off in the late 60s, early 70s as a branch of the hippie movement. When the hippies started growing up and entering the real world they realized that there is such a thing as personal responsibility – an anathema to most liberals.

4. Dominate? No.

5. I’d like to see 18th Amendment repealed. The US Senate originally represented the States. With the 18th Amendment it was changed into another House and the States came closer to being nothing more than tax collection districts.

6. I would like to see an amendment repealing the 18th Amendment.

7. I do not agree with our being the World’s primary police force

8. As limited a role as possible, mainly keeping people honest.

If a democrat wished to target the conservative voter, what questions would they ask?

IBTZ.

1. How did you first become attracted to broadly “conservative” ideas? Was there a defining moment when your political beliefs became articulate? If so, was it based what you saw in the news, what particular politicians may have said, or simply observation of the world around you?

I became a conservative when I realized that my own success is my own responsibility and not that of the government. I was actually a Democrat until I heard the words "while it is true that I did have a relationship with Ms Lewinsky"

2. On a related note, which element of conservatism is most important for you? Belief in family values, religious faith, patriotism, belief in the market, or something else entirely? I appreciate that these are all bound together to a certain extent, but if you had to isolate one element…

Family values define who we are, how we live - and how I vote. Those values are fed by religion, patriotism and a belief in free markets.

3. How do you account for the “rise of the right” since the 1970s? Has it always been there, was it a response to particular stimuli?

I account for the baby boomers growing up, making some money and realizing that the Dems were really only interested in redistributing income.

4. Do you feel conservatism is dominant in American political culture today?

It's about 60-40, but it's growing.

5. If you could repeal any constitutional amendment tomorrow, which would you choose and why?

I'd repeal none, but add one. No payment of taxes and an inability to pass the citizenship test = no vote.

6. If you could pass any constitutional amendment tomorrow, what would it be and why?

See #5

7. “Splendid isolation” and “policeman of the world” are both descriptions which have been applied to American foreign policy in the twentieth century- which is the better goal for the twenty-first century?

Neither - this must be balanced in terms of physical and economic security

8. What role, if any, should government play in the economy?

Little - besides negotiation of international treaties...sort of a macro buying power model.

9. Do you admire any philosophers/economists/statesmen of the past? If so, who and why?

Reagan - stick to his values, damn the polls and move forward kind of guy.

10. The United States at the end of the twentieth century has been compared to Britain at the end of the nineteenth. Is this a reasonable comparison in your opinion, and if so, how can the US maintain its international position through the twenty-first century as Britain failed to do in the twentieth?

This won't happen to us. We're tougher than Brits and we have better food. :-)

1. Jimmy Carter.

2. Smaller government.

3. Always been there, we're just not taught about it in public school.

4. In the real world, yes. In our popular media, no.

5. 18th.

6. English as the official language.

7. Protect America from the ideology of Islam, which is the greatest danger to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to ever confront our nation.

8. None.

10. ridiculous statement.

1. How did you first become attracted to broadly “conservative” ideas? Was there a defining moment when your political beliefs became articulate? If so, was it based what you saw in the news, what particular politicians may have said, or simply observation of the world around you?

In my mid-20's I realized that liberalism and socialism does not work for it is predicated on the forcing of change upon human nature by means of government.

2. On a related note, which element of conservatism is most important for you? Belief in family values, religious faith, patriotism, belief in the market, or something else entirely? I appreciate that these are all bound together to a certain extent, but if you had to isolate one element…

Patriotism

3. How do you account for the “rise of the right” since the 1970s? Has it always been there, was it a response to particular stimuli?

Jimmy Carter and the politics of misery. Americans don't like to be told they're losers. Because we're not.

4. Do you feel conservatism is dominant in American political culture today?

Mostly, but not perceived as such because of the domination of liberal media and elitist enclaves such as academia. It seems to be something individuals discover for themselves instead of being indoctrinated in it as liberals attempt to do through the schools.

5. If you could repeal any constitutional amendment tomorrow, which would you choose and why?

16th - End the redistribution of income. When someone gets something for nothing, someone has done something for nothing.

6. If you could pass any constitutional amendment tomorrow, what would it be and why?

Just following the traditional meaning of the first 10 would be fine.

7. “Splendid isolation” and “policeman of the world” are both descriptions which have been applied to American foreign policy in the twentieth century- which is the better goal for the twenty-first century?

There must be a balance.

8. What role, if any, should government play in the economy?

As little as possible, but that's not going to happen.

9. Do you admire any philosophers/economists/statesmen of the past? If so, who and why?

Ronald Reagan

10. The United States at the end of the twentieth century has been compared to Britain at the end of the nineteenth. Is this a reasonable comparison in your opinion, and if so, how can the US maintain its international position through the twenty-first century as Britain failed to do in the twentieth?

I don't believe this is an accurate comparison.

I think you are being unfair. I think his questions are fair and appropriate. No. 10 is not ridiculuous. Some may disagree with the premise, but it is a perfectly respectable point of view.

Don't have time to answer the questions now, but I'll be back.

Stand back and think for a minute, and carefully consider what the phrase 'self reliance' means to you. If you get that right, you won't have the answers to everything but it will be a good start, and you may be in a better position to understand where you are trying to go with your next batch of questions.

...and welcome to Free Republic.

Before I tackle some of these questions, a couple of asides you might find interesting, and didn't ask about:

Property rights -- Some friends from the UK were visiting a distant relative, and were surprised to find that he could just decide he wanted to remodel his house, or build an outbuilding, without any problems whatsoever from the local government.

The right to keep and bear arms -- this is written into our Constitution, despite any local laws to the contrary. If someone breaks into my house, or threatens me so that I fear for my life or the lives of my children, I can blow him in half with a shotgun, according the to Constitution. Some even say that this right was given to us to keep the government in check -- an armed populace is much more difficult to abuse.

#1. 1. The abortion issue first chose my political leanings for me. Conservatives are generally pro-life. Subsequently, my husband and I began to work, and liked to keep the money we made. Liberals think that money belongs to them, and they just want to give you an allowance out of your earnings, giving most of the rest to people too lazy to work, in order to buy votes. Moral issues also play an enormous role in conservatism. Love of country, rather than blaming the most generous country on earth for most of the problems on earth.

Another aside, IF we were imperialistic, we would be ruling half of Germany and most of France right now. (Incidentally, I think in the next few years, as Islam gains a greater and greater foothold there, Europe may well wish we HAD stayed.)Instead, we left.

2.The abortion issue.

3.The "right" has always been here. That portion of our society, the people who work, pay taxes, raise children, help their neighbors, defend their homes, serve in the military -- all these people are busy with life, just life. Ronald Reagan came along and articulated what the majority of Americans at that time believed but hadn't heard articulated in a great while. So we began to get involved politically -- at least that was true for me.

The left had had the playing field pretty much to themselves, at least as a public voice was concerned. Consequently, when conservatives quit sitting in the back of the bus and refused to be treated like second class citizens, the left began howling like the KKK after integration began in the school systems.

We've been here all the time. Go back and read some of the Federalist Papers, the writings of our founding fathers.

4.No, but if you could get liberals to actually say they believe in:

a. high taxes

b. surrender to our enemies

c. abortion up to and including the moment of birth

d. keeping minorities dependant upon government in order to maintain their political power

then I think the ranks of conservatism would swell exponentially.

5.The 18th amendment -- someone has already stated why.

6. A constitutional amendment banning abortion. Barring that, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

7.The U.S. is a great whipping boy, until someone in the world needs something, and who do people start screaming for?

8. I'm no economist, but I do know that regulations affect every sector, most of the time negatively. Maybe if the govt. could stop the trial lawyers from cannibalizing every profitable business to line their own pockets I would agree to a little govt. interference.

9.Winston Churchill -- he was a visionary in the best sort of way.

10. We might close our borders, that would be a start.

1. How did you first become attracted to broadly “conservative” ideas? Was there a defining moment when your political beliefs became articulate? If so, was it based what you saw in the news, what particular politicians may have said, or simply observation of the world around you?

John F. Kennedy, his beliefs, ideas, and words today would make him a conservative, tax cuts, equality and civil rights, American exceptional ism, national defense and his devotion to the spread of the ideas of freedom and liberty to all nations would have made him a conservative if he was alive today. The rumors of affairs and drug abuse by liberals only prove how far Democrats will go to destroy their greats to strength their weaknesses.

2. On a related note, which element of conservatism is most important for you? Belief in family values, religious faith, patriotism, belief in the market, or something else entirely? I appreciate that these are all bound together to a certain extent, but if you had to isolate one element…

National Defense, you won't ever find a conservative trying destroy those that wear our uniforms and defend this country, the left exists for such things.

3. How do you account for the “rise of the right” since the 1970s? Has it always been there, was it a response to particular stimuli?

The "rise of the right" was caused by the abandonment of conservative ideas inside the Democratic party, once the leaders of the party decided to go a pure liberal agenda former democrat conservatives became republicans, Ronald Reagan was one, I was another.

4. Do you feel conservatism is dominant in American political culture today?

No. Conservatism lacks the will to force others to submit to it, political domination is a liberal concept, conservatives hope that their ideas will sway the day, they are unprepared to attack their enemies until they win.

5. If you could repeal any constitutional amendment tomorrow, which would you choose and why?

I can't think of one.

6. If you could pass any constitutional amendment tomorrow, what would it be and why?

A ban on gay marriage or rather a definition of marriage as being only between one man and one woman legally bound together by license, all other forms of "marriage" common law (living together) gay unions, bigamy and other pluralities of sexual conduct should be defined as legal or illegal by the Constitution.

7. “Splendid isolation” and “policeman of the world” are both descriptions which have been applied to American foreign policy in the twentieth century which is the better goal for the twenty-first century?

Neither, both were wrong, we can be neither isolated from the world or it's protector, I prefer a foreign policy where we do our best to spread those ideas that lead others to become what we are.

8. What role, if any, should government play in the economy?

It should barely profit from it.

9. Do you admire any philosophers/economists/statesmen of the past? If so, who and why?

Reagan, John Kennedy, and Smedley Darlington Butler, each defended this country in ways many have forgotten. Butler is all to often misrepresented for his views on war, when push came to shove he was always one of this country's greatest warriors and actually prevented a coup d'état against our government that most Americans have never heard about. Had he not succeeded America might have been part of the Axis during WWII.

10. The United States at the end of the twentieth century has been compared to Britain at the end of the nineteenth. Is this a reasonable comparison in your opinion, and if so, how can the US maintain its international position through the twenty-first century as Britain failed to do in the twentieth?

No, it isn't a reasonable comparison, Britain at the end of the nineteenth was at the height of it's empire, The United States has no empire to speak of, for that comparison to be true there would have to be indigenous people in the States planning to remove themselves from the whole.

It all goes back to the Boston tea party, though I have not been alive that long. Americans rejected tyranny and aristocracy. Europe still flirts with both. When are European going to liberty enough to preserve it, themselves?

1. How did you first become attracted to broadly “conservative” ideas? Was there a defining moment when your political beliefs became articulate? If so, was it based what you saw in the news, what particular politicians may have said, or simply observation of the world around you?

I think that, as a native of Oklahoma, conservatism was just the air I breathed. That would not indicate that my parents were Republicans; there are too many family headstones which include the notation "CSA" for that. But I myself did grow up as a Republican, in Pennsylvania.
You want to understand what is American conservatism before you get too wrapped up in details. And I think it is best summed up as a mission statement in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Unlike almost all other nations, the US was purpose-built at an identifiable place and time. You cannot really say when Britain started; to the Scottish it might be an identifiable date - but for an Englishman . . .
So American "conservatism" is a strange duck. It is in a very real sense conserving a revolution, the idea that government can be of, by, and for the people without imploding into the sort of chaos which engulfed France. It is revolutionary in the sense that preserving "liberty" means allowing people to do new things, and old things in new ways. And that means that our "conservatism" is the conservation of a very dynamic system.
Socialism, OTOH, is predicated on cynicism about the ability of the people to order their affairs without the aid of a domineering government. Note that the term "socialism" cynically abuses the root word "social." If one did not know better but simply tried to infer the meaning of "social" from its root and from a knowledge that it referred to a form of government, one might readily conclude that it referred to a minimalist government with maximum scope for social decision typified by the voluntary exchange of the open marketplace.
And one notes the abuse of language as a consistent theme in leftism. I asked a leftist relative of mine to define the difference between "society" and "government." He could not do so, for the simple reason that the leftist conflates the two. The answer is simple: the difference between "government" and "society" is freedom. The two are the same only under the assumption of no freedom in society. In a similar vein the leftist will systematically prefer to say "public" when he means nothing other than government. It just sounds nicer, but the meaning is ultimately a policeman at your door if you do not wish to go along with "society" or do not wish to "contribute" to a "public" school.
It is sometimes noted that Americans have a need to affirm the superiority of America, whereas the same might not be true of the typical country whose name you might arbitrarily select from an Atlas. I suspect that that is true, for the simple reason that America was purpose-built to be an exemplar, and consequently America must either excel or fail. And on the basis of the voluntary decisions of people, it has IMHO to be reckoned as a success. The flow of people out of American is a trickle, and the potential flow of people into America - were it completely unregulated - would be in comparison a flood.
Indeed, on reported demographic trends, Europe stands ready to become dominated by Muslims - and as their influence increases a desire to live elsewhere might readily arise among the remaining Christians of Europe. Christianity is undoubtedly a conservative influence in America. Even here, many churches become mere social clubs; in Europe with their established churches Christianity seems to have become associated with loss of freedom.

5. If you could repeal any constitutional amendment tomorrow, which would you choose and why?

Seventeenth. It provides for direct election of Senators, which has the virtue of providing "legislative districts" which are immutable and therefore not subject to gerrymandering by politicians choosing their own voters . . . But.
The fact that a senator now represents the people of his state, rather that the state (government) itself, as emasculated the states and given us less a "federal" than a "central" government. The consequence has been that the federal courts, which are confirmed and potentially convicted of impeachment only by the Senate, do not respect the state governments and will overturn their legislation wholesale. E.g., Roe v. Wade.

6. If you could pass any constitutional amendment tomorrow, what would it be and why?

Term limits for congressmen. Republican congressmen take about four or six years to "go native" in Washington D.C. and get fully into the "go along and get along" mode in less than eight years (Democratic congressmen are "natives" of Washington the day they arrive).
Any loss of legislative experience would fully be made up by an increased sensitivity to home-folks reality. And there are legions of competent adults within each Congressional District, which has upwards of half a million people in it, and no indication that they send their very best to Congress.

7. “Splendid isolation” and “policeman of the world” are both descriptions which have been applied to American foreign policy in the twentieth century- which is the better goal for the twenty-first century?

There was a time when isolation was a viable concept. But I think that "jet planes" answers that question for good and all.

8. What role, if any, should government play in the economy?

The larger the government's role, the less liberty there will be. And that is not the mission the preamble assigns to the government.

9. Do you admire any philosophers/economists/statesmen of the past? If so, who and why?

Adam Smith
The framers of the Constitution
F A Hayek
Ronald Reagan
But why limit consideration to the past?

Margaret Thatcher
Thomas Sowell
As to why, that is beyond the scope of this note. Their own writings and/or works will amply speak for them.

10. The United States at the end of the twentieth century has been compared to Britain at the end of the nineteenth. Is this a reasonable comparison in your opinion, and if so, how can the US maintain its international position through the twenty-first century as Britain failed to do in the twentieth?

We should continue to welcome immigrants who want to become Americans and we should limit the immigration of those who want to make America something other than its traditionally dynamic self. We have enough questioning of American values, right here in our own institutions without importing more of it.
And Internet publishing such as Free Republic must be protected and expanded. Those with the conceit that NOTHING actually matters except PR must be confounded, their lies exposed and their influence diminished.

1. How did you first become attracted to broadly “conservative” ideas?

Since the first half of the 19th Century in Cuba, my family has fought, bled and died in the cause of anti-authoritarianism and individual and political freedom.

In Cuba in 1868, such ideas were called "radical" and "revolutionary" and even Winston Churchill traveled to Cuba as a military observer to cheer on the fight against us. In 2006, the very same ideas are called "conservative" and many Europeans still rail against us while swooning over Fidel Castro, a traditional military "Caudillo".

The ideals of my family have not changed for over 150 years.

Only the terms used by Europeans to describe us have changed.

3. How do you account for the “rise of the right” since the 1970s? Has it always been there, was it a response to particular stimuli?

Do you truly belive that the term "right", first used to describe the aristocratic faction on the eve of the French Revolution, can be used to describe everything from the French landed gentry of the ancien regime to National Socialism to a Middle American with a family farm and a belief in personal freedom and self reliance?

The last time my family was firmly in the "Right" by the traditional meaning was in the early 19th Century when my direct paternal branch had landed estates in Spain with centuries-old stone family crests on their walls, "colonos" (serfs) and when they fought against the French forces in Spain in order to reestablish our ancien regime.

Fifty years later in Cuba, my other branches were firmly entrenched on the radical "Left" in order to establish a democratic Republic in Cuba.

As I said before, that has remained our political philosophy for the last 150 years but that philosophy is now described as "Right" while concentration of power in a central Government or a despost is now labelled "Left".

7. “Splendid isolation” and “policeman of the world” are both descriptions which have been applied to American foreign policy in the twentieth century- which is the better goal for the twenty-first century?

I find it extremely frustrating that, in the late 20th Century and the 21st Century, only America has taken on the unpleasant responsibility of keeping the wolf from the door.

America's "Splendid Isolation" after the disillusionment of World War One brought about 40 million European dead and 600,000 American dead in World War Two.

America acting as the "Worlds Policeman" brought about the European "Pax Americana" that has allowed you to become what you Europeans are today.

Which way America goes will affect you much more than it will affect America.

8. What role, if any, should government play in the economy?

The fact of life is that man, by nature, will try to screw his fellow man. Fuedalism, Communism and pure capitalism all fail because they all concentrate power in the hands of those who would use that power to unfairly eliminate all competition.

The role of Government is to provide the checks and balances needed so that everybody can compete fairly with the most freedom possible without fear of either the Government beaureacrat or the local oligarch making you a business offer "you can't refuse".

10. The United States at the end of the twentieth century has been compared to Britain at the end of the nineteenth. Is this a reasonable comparison in your opinion, and if so, how can the US maintain its international position through the twenty-first century as Britain failed to do in the twentieth?

Nineteenth Century Britain, as Lord Palmerston said, had no permanent friends and only permanent interests.

In other words, pure selfish was the national policy.

America, being much more naive, has devoted much blood and treasure for the benefit of others - Western Europe being the prime example.

It may not be sustainable but Europe should dread the day that a future America adopts the philosophy of Lord Palmerston in regards to Europe.

1. How did you first become attracted to broadly “conservative” ideas? Was there a defining moment when your political beliefs became articulate? If so, was it based what you saw in the news, what particular politicians may have said, or simply observation of the world around you?

My parents and extended family were all conservative, and I was raised mainly during the Clinton years and saw how bad he and his ilk were, but I really came into my own during my junior year of high school during a political class, where I had a Republican teacher. As it were, this was in 2001, the same year as Sept. 11, and I remember watching the second plane hit on live television during that class. I live 25 miles from NYC, and the smoke could be seen in the air from my school. I have only gown more conservative over the last few years, well beyond the norm for my peers.

2. On a related note, which element of conservatism is most important for you? Belief in family values, religious faith, patriotism, belief in the market, or something else entirely? I appreciate that these are all bound together to a certain extent, but if you had to isolate one element…

I do believe everything is bound together, but the adhesion would come from my religious faith. I am Roman Catholic, and so I am pro-life and pro-family because of that. I think the faith and love of Christianity amplify my patriotism, and how I conduct myself in college and the business world. My religious beliefs provide moral standard and ethical conduct for myself, which I use in everyday life. I don't want to "force" my religious views on anyone, but I am zealous in defending my faith. A common misperception is that American Christians push for a "Theocracy". This is not the case at all, we are trying to preserve and restore that which we have always had, and what has made this country so great, and unyielding faith in God.

3. How do you account for the “rise of the right” since the 1970s? Has it always been there, was it a response to particular stimuli?

I believe the rise of conservatism came about because of the 1960's society, and the Vietnam War. The hippy/liberal counterculture kept attacking everything, government, religion, patriotism, and forced itself and its views on to society, and made it "socially wrong" to attack the progressive/secularism that they imposed. A good example of this is political correctness that has gone so far, that people are afraid to speak their mind for fear of being called bigots, or being misquoted to appear as such. They established many ridiculous laws, and made it very easy for people to be sued. Everyone is essentially neutered for fear of lawsuits. I think the average person continued to grow more and more resentful of this, and became very angry that everything they ever believed in, and everything that they told were right, were constantly being assaulted, marginalized, and put down. President Reagan was the leader of the conservative movement to stop this and to preserve our heritage and traditions that were under siege. He was essential in building up the Republican party and restoring the country to greatness. Pope John Paul II also helped lead many people in this country spiritually. Everything gained momentum from that time on.

4. Do you feel conservatism is dominant in American political culture today?

Absolutely. Even many liberals have a conservative element to them. Change is always resisted by human nature. Somethings do not need to be changed, and some of the things that do can be changed slowly over time, not all at once. Liberals seem to want everything changed right away, which is not right at all. Liberals want a utopian society, which will never come about, because people are imperfect and sinful. Most Americans want to conserve their constitutional rights, their religious freedom (not freedom from religion), their patriotism, and their customs and traditions, all of which liberalism and terrorism seeks to destroy in some fashion. Yes, conservatism is dominant in American political culture.

5. If you could repeal any constitutional amendment tomorrow, which would you choose and why?

LOL, the only amendment that needed to be repealed has already been repealed, and that was prohibition. I like me beer. I am very happy with all of the other amendments, especially the the 2nd amendment, the right to keep and bare arms, the right that protects all others.

6. If you could pass any constitutional amendment tomorrow, what would it be and why?

The protection of the institution of marriage. If marriage become corrupted, then our society and values will be severely jeopardized. It will lead to the death of our culture. Marriage should be between one man and one woman.

7. “Splendid isolation” and “policeman of the world” are both descriptions which have been applied to American foreign policy in the twentieth century- which is the better goal for the twenty-first century?

Neither is good. I hate our country being the world's policeman. I don't like our soldiers doing everyone else's dirty work. Other countries must learn to stand on their own without us. It is my belief that American policies during the Cold War have turned much of Europe into impotent cowards, with no will to defend themselves or their culture, and the inability to take action to do so anyway. They were spoiled by us, and are now paying the price. However, we cannot become isolationist. Every time in American history that we became isolationist, war found it's way to our doorstep. If there is a nation that is a threat to us, we should deal with them, in any way that is necessary. If our allies need help, we can help them, but we should not do everything for them. I would love to have all of our troops home, but this world is too dangerous with Muslim terrorists, and the West must take action before they are unable to do so.

8. What role, if any, should government play in the economy?

The government should have some basic laws to prevent monopolies, protect investors, and prevent illegal activities, such as tax evasion and illegal dumping, but for the most part, should let the free-market do it's thing. The government should keeps it's involvement in the economy to a minimum.

9. Do you admire any philosophers/economists/statesmen of the past? If so, who and why?

I like some of Kant's ideas, but I must apply my religious faith tot hem. Kant, if I remember correctly, was a bit of a utilitarian, which is a good thing, as long as there are mechanism to keep it ethical. I like Smith for economics, as he had some good ideas, such as the "invisible hand", that are still pertinent today. As for statesmen, I like Patrick Henry, G.K. Chesterton, and President Reagen, they are very eloquent and have excellent quotes. As for modern times, I absolutely love Pope Benedict XVI.

10. The United States at the end of the twentieth century has been compared to Britain at the end of the nineteenth. Is this a reasonable comparison in your opinion, and if so, how can the US maintain its international position through the twenty-first century as Britain failed to do in the twentieth?

This is unfair, aside for being an Anglo country, our motivations and goals are vastly different from England's empire. England wanted to spread their culture and influence, for their own profit. The United States goes abroad to defend itself from terrorism, and seeks to spread democracy, not it's culture. Britain had every intention of staying in it's conquered territories, we do not. England was not first attacked by elements of it's colonies like the US was by terrorists operating from these havens. I want our troops the be out of harms way as soon as possible, but not until their job is done, and we still need them to defend us over there. I'd rather fight them over there, than over here. Britain and the US are good friends and allies, and hopefully we shall stay that way. I want the US to stay a superpower, but not necessarily to be the world's leader in everything. Islamic terrorists have declared a holy war on all of the West, and though many here don't think so, they had better wake up to the very real threat among them real quick. As long as they are a threat, this country will battle them.

I hope that helps you some. I am a college student myself, and I have to do research like this all of the time. It can be a real pain. I do hope you are legitimate, and did not make me waste some time in writing this.

I’d like to see 18th Amendment repealed.

Fortunately for y'all, the 18th Amendment was repealed in 1933, and now the sale, importation, and manufacture of intoxicating liquors is A-OK :-p

Now, if y'all wanna talk about repealing the 16th, which permitted direct unapportioned taxation, or the 17th, which introduced the direct popular election of Senators, I'm right there with ya.

Ya, I realized that after I posted. I meant the 17th. Doh!

Many thanks all, do continue, this is excellent...The point about conserving the revolution and America as exemplar was particularly illuminating. If I could clear up a few points though?
I am not a troll, nor am I a democrat trying to convert conservatives. It strikes me that if I were a democrat I would be best advised to try to convert the "floating voter" rather than a thriving explicitly conservative forum. Free Republic is unlikely to provide fertile ground for Democrat propaganda.

Also, question 10 seems to be generating considerable ire. Whilst I am interested in a genuine response, and I do not support the proposition in the question, I feel it is worth pointing out a few things about British history in this period. The rationale for much British military action at this time was not selfish empire (at least not in public). The British invasion of Egypt was "to restore order" and to bring Egyptian finances and administration back into shape. The government at the time proclaimed that this would be temporary. The advance into the Sudan was an early example of the fight against the Islamic extremism of the Mahdi (General Gordon, Omdurman etc). The Boer War was started in defence of the democratic rights of British subjects in the Boer Republics. Britain was the only global superpower at the turn of the century, according to the definition of being able to fight a great war in two theatres. In addition, Britain as understood by comtemporaries included the autonomous dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa), which with a little imagination could be compared to states.

There were considerable differences which it would be wrong and foolish to ignore, even besides the obvious time and space differences, but I thought it might be worth clarifying why some people have tried to draw comparisons here, and why it is at least worthy of response rather than dismissal as ridiculous.

Also, I realize the two questions concerning repealing and amending the constitution technically can be the same answer, as an amendment is needed to repeal another amendment. However, please accept my apologies on this point, and assume that I meant a fresh addition to the consitution. Also, I would broaden this question on further reflection to include alterations to procedure, precedent and custom e.g the role of the Supreme Court, or the practice of filibustering.

Also, question 7 posits a choice which is obviously not entirely representative of all of the possible foreign policy options- any other directions for 21st century American foreign policy would also be of interest.

Thanks once again

AARRGGHH!!!
I meant the 17th!

Ooops, I meant the 17th, as well ..... sheesh.