Where did you get the silly idea that conservatives were supposed to be against killing?

If you got it from the 10 Commandments, be aware that the KJV's "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation; the Hebrew word used is the word that specifically means murder, and accordingly, most later translations render it as "You shall not commit murder" or something very similar.

Conservatives, Christians (except for a few pacifist denominations based upon that faulty translation, which are a small minority) and Jews, have never had a problem with killing in self-defense, in lawful execution or in war.

And while conservatives usually do favor executing the heinously guilty, there is no inconsistency between that and opposing the execution of the innocent.

__________________
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams.

You seem to have some 'train wrecks' of your own...

Hmmm...you are the one who posted the article and the proof is right here, read your own first post to the thread again...the following is from the SFC article quoting him in South Carolina:

This is clearly rhetoric of a constructionist. Do you even know what a constructionist is at this point? Look at the phrase in bold type!

The idea of the 'activist judge' clearly qualifies a person as a constructionist. It is a bunch of jingoistic crap that that people throw up when cornered...

Dishonesty... You might not like a pro-choice view but it is not dishonest in what they reported.

Rhetoric is one thing; actions are another. If McCain really did do that, he'd be appointing judges who, given the chance, would declare his pet project, McCain-Feingold, unconstitutional. I don't see that as likely.

__________________
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams.

Absolutely true. The Republicans say they cannot legislate against abortion until Roe is overturned. But how can the Supreme Court issue a ruling except when a legal case is before it? What opportunity can the Court have to overturn Roe, if no law against Roe comes before it? And if the Republicans won't legislate against Roe, how can any law against Roe ever reach the Court?

In the decades since the Roe decision came down, the Republicans have controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress and they have yet to effectively put any legislative restrictions on abortion. So why should anyone believe the Republicans will ever do so?

Also, all but 2 of the justices to sit on the Supreme Court since the Roe decision were appointed by Republicans, and yet the Court still cannot muster a majority to overturn Roe. Just what are the Republicans waiting for?

Until they want to be President and erroneously believe they must attract voters from the large pool of moderates the media keeps telling us about.

BTW: What issues does the ACU use to define conservatism?

Actually a true conservative will always be concerned about justice and effecting justice may require some killing.

http://www.acuratings.org/

Click on "Description of Votes Scored" for a list of the congressional votes the rating is based on.

__________________
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams.

The ACU is far from conservative by my standards.

So this conservative organization was in favor of new/higher taxes?

The ACU’s stand on CAFE standards is not what I would accept as the conservative position. As a conservative I want to reduce our dependence on oil because I don’t want to be dependent on countries that are potentially hostile to the U.S. I also want to curtail our dependence on the personal automobile because this dependence facilitates urban sprawl which makes it difficult to have close-knit communities that are necessary for societal cohesion. And I am in favor of conserving natural resources for future use.

Again rejecting this amendment is not the conservative position because it promotes the wanton use of natural resources (and likely does so in a manner that endangers the natural environment to an unacceptable extent).

Again, lifting the moratorium is not the conservative position because it discourages natural resource conservation.

Congress has no constitutional power to nullify a court ruling simply by saying the ruling is null. If a specific law was struck down, Congress can re-write it. Otherwise the only way to overrule a court ruling is amending the constitution.

I do not find an absolute right to own or trade guns in the Constitution. This amendment was reasonable.

Medical malpractice is a matter of what’s right and wrong, not what’s left or right. My grandmother died after she was given an overdose of blood pressure medication in a rehab hospital/nursing home. But, then our lawyer botched the lawsuit. A plague on both their houses.

This sounds like nothing but a federal subsidy for big business and as such it cannot be legitimately supported by conservatives.

I don’t know that I understand what this bill was meant to accomplish. However, I am opposed to placing any financial, or legal liability burden on political speech. And I don’t consider this to be liberal-conservative issue.

Again we don’t need the possible energy resources of the ocean floor as long as other alternatives have not been developed.

You equate China and the US?

Good post. You said it all. They are hypocrits.