The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on November 19, 2012, 09:34:26 pm
-
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=67835CFD-1D35-440E-A86D-AF574A22705C (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=67835CFD-1D35-440E-A86D-AF574A22705C)
Rush Limbaugh takes on GOP critics
By: Kevin Cirilli
November 19, 2012 04:03 PM EST
Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh hit back hard Monday against Republican critics who say his commentary hurt GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s failed presidential run.
GOP strategist Mike Murphy said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the primaries were “driving the Republican brand right now to disaster” and that Republicans needed to acquire a view of the country “that’s not right out of Rush Limbaugh’s dream journal.”
Limbaugh’s response: “What, folks, did I or any of you have to do with the Republican primary? Did not Murphy get the candidate he wanted? All these consultants, do you realize they get rich no matter who wins or loses? Little-known secret. They get rich no matter who wins or loses,” Limbaugh said on his radio show, according to a show transcript.
“But [in] the Republican primary, as far as he’s concerned, there were too many conservatives in it saying too many stupid things,” Limbaugh added. “We need to get rid of conservatism, is what is he’s saying.”
Next up was GOP strategist Steve Schmidt, who last week at a University of Delaware panel discussion said that Limbaugh’s “white, 65 plus and rural” audience is “not what the country looks like anymore” and that Limbaugh was driving a message of “total ludicrous nonsense.”
Limbaugh’s take? “Okay, so you people are all white, 65 and over, and you live in the sticks. And you are screwing up the Republican Party, because you are believing what I say. This is their explanation for having lost,” Limbaugh said.
“Steve Schmidt was the architect of McCain’s defeat, he was McCain’s guy. Steve Schmidt ran [John McCain’s 2008] campaign. Yeah. I don’t know where Schmidt has a victory to hang his hat on. He may. I don’t know,” Limbaugh added.
The strategists, Limbaugh said, “think they have the strategy, they have the blueprint, they know how to win, though none of them ever do.”
He added: “But then I come along, and I get the public so riled up that I end up getting people to vote in ways against the strategists have convinced their candidates they can make happen. So it’s my fault.”
-
You just knew the moderates were going to blame the conservatives for the loss. Would we have gotten credit for a win? Or would they have said it was because we took their advice and nominated a moderate?
-
You just knew the moderates were going to blame the conservatives for the loss. Would we have gotten credit for a win? Or would they have said it was because we took their advice and nominated a moderate?
And the conservatives are blaming the moderates for the loss.
Circular firing squad = circle jerk. Unproductive. Not needed.
Democrats are more results oriented. They stay focused on their objective continually, instead of just a few weeks every two years.
-
And the conservatives are blaming the moderates for the loss.
Circular firing squad = circle jerk. Unproductive. Not needed.
Democrats are more results oriented. They stay focused on their objective continually, instead of just a few weeks every two years.
I am placing the blame where it belongs. The candidate. In the end they had a lousy ground GOTV campaign and lost. Romney ran a campaign where he tried to stay under the radar and not make any mistakes, the last debate is a good example.. everyone here on the debate thread was asking where the Romney from the first debate had disappeared off to.........
and ... according to actual exit polls, he WAS hurt by Christie praising Obama.. this is not supposition, this is based on exit polls...
and... last... this is why the circular firing squaders all saying we lost because we are not giving amnesty or because of the Christians in the GOP, etc., really, really piss me off... a strong candidate could and should have defeated Obama soundly.
-
It WAS the socon's fault.
They provided the examples of 'bigoted' thought....they provided the columns calling for roundups and deportation.
They provided the basic premise for the phony war on women, regarding reproductive rights. Abortion.
Oh yeah, ultimately it was. The culture has passed them by...to the point that the socon POV seems Medieval.
I'm just saying the MSM manipulated and staged phony press conferences (Fluke) and phony issues (Geo. Stephanopoulis) and we never recovered.
that and cheating of course.
-
Perhaps you can supply links for all the "socon's" who "called for round-up and deportation."
-
It WAS the socon's fault.
They provided the examples of 'bigoted' thought....they provided the columns calling for roundups and deportation.
They provided the basic premise for the phony war on women, regarding reproductive rights. Abortion.
Oh yeah, ultimately it was. The culture has passed them by...to the point that the socon POV seems Medieval.
I'm just saying the MSM manipulated and staged phony press conferences (Fluke) and phony issues (Geo. Stephanopoulis) and we never recovered.
that and cheating of course.
Well, you just go out there, DC, without the social conservatives and see how many elections you win.
I can't believe you even believe some of the things you wrote above.
They're just that galacticly stupid.
-
Well, you just go out there, DC, without the social conservatives and see how many elections you win.
I can't believe you even believe some of the things you wrote above.
They're just that galacticly stupid.
Sink...I've been a party to hostile immigration conversations on TOS for years. Don't freaking tell me what's galactictly stupid.
If we would have concentrated on FISCAL issues....on EDUCATION CURRICULUM....instead of social issues and hand wringing over Row V Wade.
If we would have been less hostile toward illegal immigrants, we might have been getting half the Hispanic vote. But we weren't And we aren't.
THAT'S what's galactictly stupid.
-
Sink...I've been a party to hostile immigration conversations on TOS for years. Don't freaking tell me what's galactictly stupid.
If we would have concentrated on FISCAL issues....on EDUCATION CURRICULUM....instead of social issues and hand wringing over Row V Wade.
If we would have been less hostile toward illegal immigrants, we might have been getting half the Hispanic vote. But we weren't And we aren't.
THAT'S what's galactictly stupid.
Could not agree more. That is not to say that the GOP should be ignoring religion or socially conservative sensibilities, but the GOP's position should be that of the Founders - protecting the rights of individuals to be free from interference by the majority in their personal lives - and not that of trying to impose socially conservative positions on everyone else by dint of the federal government.
If you read the Constitution carefully, what comes across is how much it was intended to be about a common economic union between the states, and a common sovereign power as against foreign sovereign powers, and not at all a social or religious union whatsoever. The basic themes in the Constitution are:
(1) protection of the rights of the individual as against the will of the majority,
(2) protection of economic liberty by restraining the States' abilities to interfere with interstate commerce and thereby to balkanize the country, and by granting the federal government the powers needed to create a common economic foundation - i.e., the powers over commerce, taxation, currency, bankruptcy, patents and copyrights, and the like, and
(3) protection against foreign powers attempting to divide the States amongst themselves by providing the federal government with the power to present a strong, unified, unquestionably sovereign face to the outside world.
That is what the GOP should be focusing on - the undeniable benefits of economic liberty, which the federal government is supposed to facilitate, not circumscribe, and the creation and maintenance of a robust sphere of private activity where individuals can comport themselves as they see fit by their own beliefs and their religion without undue interference by the government. Instead, we always end up getting fixated on foisting one or another of the social conservatives' virtues on everyone else.
-
What is so funny in this is the GOP did NOT campaign on social issues.... you are all reaching for straw dogs here trying to make them the issue.., no one said they were going to repead Roe v Wade - did not happen!!! Romney said -- no change there. People on the "far right" did not stay home and note vote -- they voted!!!! The mushy middle libertarians were the people who swung this election..., but hey-- don't blame the Paulites when you can blame those nasty Christians instead.
-
What is so funny in this is the GOP did NOT campaign on social issues.... you are all reaching for straw dogs here trying to make them the issue.., no one said they were going to repead Roe v Wade - did not happen!!! Romney said -- no change there. People on the "far right" did not stay home and note vote -- they voted!!!! The mushy middle libertarians were the people who swung this election..., but hey-- don't blame the Paulites when you can blame those nasty Christians instead.
When Obama said "We must punish our enemies and reward our friends who stand with us.....", he was speaking to Hispanics.
When George Stephanopoulis started the charge by asking Romney that question, instead of deer in the headlights, he should have gotten crazy angry and said that nowhere in the Republican platform or strategy of any kind would adversely affect a woman's right to choose.
-
What is so funny in this is the GOP did NOT campaign on social issues.... you are all reaching for straw dogs here trying to make them the issue.., no one said they were going to repead Roe v Wade - did not happen!!! Romney said -- no change there. People on the "far right" did not stay home and note vote -- they voted!!!! The mushy middle libertarians were the people who swung this election..., but hey-- don't blame the Paulites when you can blame those nasty Christians instead.
WORD......we came out in droves..through broken glass as the saying goes.....we wanted Obama gone and did not stay home...and btw as a social conservative I refuse to be a single issue voter although I do take a candidate's stance on an issue into account as we all should....Santorum best represents my values but did I vote for him...hell no!...I knew there was no way he could ever win....so I went with the best chance we had although I did not agree with all his positions and that is what millions of us did...we went with our best chance to get rid of this POS in office.....
-
Again, I'm not claiming the socon stayed home.
I'm claiming that the actions/words/positions of the socons were used against Republicans and GOP in the war on women and immigration reform which affected the Hispanic vote. The Left got out their vote. They got the youth vote too.
-
Sink...I've been a party to hostile immigration conversations on TOS for years. Don't freaking tell me what's galactictly stupid.
If we would have concentrated on FISCAL issues....on EDUCATION CURRICULUM....instead of social issues and hand wringing over Row V Wade.
If we would have been less hostile toward illegal immigrants, we might have been getting half the Hispanic vote. But we weren't And we aren't.
THAT'S what's galactictly stupid.
And when we've finished kissing every illegal's ass and every damned one of them still votes for Democrats because they give them things, what will we have accomplished?
I'm hunkering down. No more money to charities that work with "the deprived" who voted for Obama, not a dime for those companies in blue states (like Lands End and Vermont Country Store or LL Bean), and all credit cards have been cancelled for financial institutions in blue states.
That you think my pushing for religious liberty because I refuse to pay for contraceptives for women who can clearly afford them meant that I furnished ammunition for some fabricated "war on women" indicates to me that you're just not very astute, DC.
You're into blaming now, blaming those on your side instead of seeing just how dependent millions of people have become in this country. The dependent class is always going to vote for those who give them things, and you're never going to change that until and unless they're brought to their knees by that dependency and they have nowhere else to go but to self-sufficiency and self-reliance.
-
When Obama said "We must punish our enemies and reward our friends who stand with us.....", he was speaking to Hispanics.
When George Stephanopoulis started the charge by asking Romney that question, instead of deer in the headlights, he should have gotten crazy angry and said that nowhere in the Republican platform or strategy of any kind would adversely affect a woman's right to choose.
He did. You must have missed it. No Republican ever said anything about contraceptives OTHER THAN they didn't want to pay for them or have the religious institutions they respected be forced to pay for them in violation of conscience.
-
What is so funny in this is the GOP did NOT campaign on social issues.... you are all reaching for straw dogs here trying to make them the issue.., no one said they were going to repead Roe v Wade - did not happen!!! Romney said -- no change there. People on the "far right" did not stay home and note vote -- they voted!!!! The mushy middle libertarians were the people who swung this election..., but hey-- don't blame the Paulites when you can blame those nasty Christians instead.
You just don't get it, do you? Social conservatives have so badly tarred and feathered the GOP with their inane insistence that abortion be outlawed and doctors and women who have abortions be treated like murderers, that gays be banned from being gay anywhere but in their own bedrooms, that illegal immigrants be rounded up by some latter-day gestapo and frog-marched across the Rio Grande, and the like, that it doesn't have to run on social issues to get lambasted by those issues.
Social conservatives as they stand right now are a millstone dragging everyone down because they simply cannot get it out of their heads that this country is not, and never was, a Christian country, and that you don't get the right to force everyone to follow the tenets of your religion just because you think you're correct.
-
You just don't get it, do you? Social conservatives have so badly tarred and feathered the GOP with their inane insistence that abortion be outlawed and doctors and women who have abortions be treated like murderers, that gays be banned from being gay anywhere but in their own bedrooms, that illegal immigrants be rounded up by some latter-day gestapo and frog-marched across the Rio Grande, and the like, that it doesn't have to run on social issues to get lambasted by those issues.
Social conservatives as they stand right now are a millstone dragging everyone down because they simply cannot get it out of their heads that this country is not, and never was, a Christian country, and that you don't get the right to force everyone to follow the tenets of your religion just because you think you're correct.
Your parody of social conservatives is not funny.
-
You just don't get it, do you? Social conservatives have so badly tarred and feathered the GOP with their inane insistence that abortion be outlawed and doctors and women who have abortions be treated like murderers, that gays be banned from being gay anywhere but in their own bedrooms, that illegal immigrants be rounded up by some latter-day gestapo and frog-marched across the Rio Grande, and the like, that it doesn't have to run on social issues to get lambasted by those issues.
Social conservatives as they stand right now are a millstone dragging everyone down because they simply cannot get it out of their heads that this country is not, and never was, a Christian country, and that you don't get the right to force everyone to follow the tenets of your religion just because you think you're correct.
Frankly I have no idea where you have come up with this stuff, certainly not from this election..
All of a sudden you want open borders, are fine with taxpayers being forced to pay for everyone's birth control and TAXPAYER-funded abortions - not just in the good ole former USA, but in every nation of the world (thanks to Obama)....... maybe that is fine with you, but as a FISCAL conservative I am sick of paying for stuff like this... let them pay for their own abortions and their own birth control... and that has nothing to do with being any kind of "Christian"
And nowhere has anyone here said ban people from being GAY -- some of us just happen to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.. speaking for myself I am fine with civil unions and as long as they are not getting it on my TV screen or in front of me I don't care what anyone does in the closed door of their freaking bedroom........ and NO ONE has said they want Hispanics frog-marched anywhere and you know it.
.. basically everything in your post is so off the wall it is downright stunning to read. Basically it sounds like you are fine with the GOP as long as we all become nice little Democrats. So much for us ever getting back to any fiscal sanity as we try to out buy the people the Democrats love to buy..... and yes... that is exactly what you are advocating....
There is (or was) a LOT of Christians on this site you're insulting with this broad brush.
-
Frankly I have no idea where you have come up with this stuff, certainly not from this election..
All of a sudden you want open borders, are fine with taxpayers being forced to pay for everyone's birth control and TAXPAYER-funded abortions - not just in the good ole former USA, but in every nation of the world (thanks to Obama)....... maybe that is fine with you, but as a FISCAL conservative I am sick of paying for stuff like this... let them pay for their own abortions and their own birth control... and that has nothing to do with being any kind of "Christian"
And nowhere has anyone here said ban people from being GAY -- some of us just happen to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.. speaking for myself I am fine with civil unions and as long as they are not getting it on my TV screen or in front of me I don't care what anyone does in the closed door of their freaking bedroom........ and NO ONE has said they want Hispanics frog-marched anywhere and you know it.
.. basically everything in your post is so off the wall it is downright stunning to read. Basically it sounds like you are fine with the GOP as long as we all become nice little Democrats. So much for us ever getting back to any fiscal sanity as we try to out buy the people the Democrats love to buy..... and yes... that is exactly what you are advocating....
There is (or was) a LOT of Christians on this site you're insulting with this broad brush.
There's already a party for people like Oceander. It's called the Libertarian Party: open borders and amoral on social issues.
Instead, he's insisting that the GOP become the Libertarians because the Libertarians are viewed as friggin' goofy by 99% of the population.
-
And the conservatives are blaming the moderates for the loss.
Circular firing squad = circle jerk. Unproductive. Not needed.
Democrats are more results oriented. They stay focused on their objective continually, instead of just a few weeks every two years.
Yes, they do. They identify their prize, and they stick together no matter what, until they eventually realize it. Republicans, OTOH, fight, squabble, divide, and generally tear the R candidates and the issues apart--lose the election, then form more circular firing squads blaming everyone under the sun for their loss.
This thread is a great illustration. Its all so tedious--I don't ever see an end to it, OR another Republican presidential victory, for that matter.
-
Frankly I have no idea where you have come up with this stuff, certainly not from this election..
All of a sudden you want open borders, are fine with taxpayers being forced to pay for everyone's birth control and TAXPAYER-funded abortions - not just in the good ole former USA, but in every nation of the world (thanks to Obama)....... maybe that is fine with you, but as a FISCAL conservative I am sick of paying for stuff like this... let them pay for their own abortions and their own birth control... and that has nothing to do with being any kind of "Christian"
And nowhere has anyone here said ban people from being GAY -- some of us just happen to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.. speaking for myself I am fine with civil unions and as long as they are not getting it on my TV screen or in front of me I don't care what anyone does in the closed door of their freaking bedroom........ and NO ONE has said they want Hispanics frog-marched anywhere and you know it.
.. basically everything in your post is so off the wall it is downright stunning to read. Basically it sounds like you are fine with the GOP as long as we all become nice little Democrats. So much for us ever getting back to any fiscal sanity as we try to out buy the people the Democrats love to buy..... and yes... that is exactly what you are advocating....
There is (or was) a LOT of Christians on this site you're insulting with this broad brush.
Set up many strawmen recently? Try this on for size:
All of a sudden you want open borders, are fine with taxpayers being forced to pay for everyone's birth control and TAXPAYER-funded abortions - not just in the good ole former USA, but in every nation of the world (thanks to Obama)....... maybe that is fine with you, but as a FISCAL conservative I am sick of paying for stuff like this... let them pay for their own abortions and their own birth control... and that has nothing to do with being any kind of "Christian"
I've never said that I want open borders or that open borders are fine - I have tried to work painstakingly through the issues involved to find a suitable compromise. Since we're setting up strawmen, however, let me set this one up for you: Are you fine being a latter-day Nazi, rounding people up mercilessly like cattle - including children whose only "offense" is having been born and raised in the US by parents who are here illegally - packing them into railroad cars and shipping them, en masse, across the Rio Grande? Which of these two strawmen do you think is going to get support from a majority of Americans - and I am referring solely to those who are bona fide, legal American citizens with an undoubted right to vote?
I have never said that government should be paying for anyone's birth control or abortions, not ever and I specifically challenge you to find any statement of mine that unequivocally - not just some private inference visible only to you - saying such. If you cannot find any such statement, then I expect a retraction. Rather, I have said, repeatedly, that the government should not be in the business of incentivizing people to either have, or not have, children, that the government's only role should be that of ensuring that any medical professionals involved are competent and any medical facilities used meet all applicable sanitary requirements.
In terms of what social conservatives have, for decades, been demanding, you clearly haven't been paying any attention whatsoever. First, it is social conservatives who have been demanding that the government was scarce resources prohibiting abortion and restricting it as much as possible, and policing those restrictions to catch violators. That is not only an improper use of government in general because it constitutes unwarranted interference in private relations that have only a very limited public interest, it also puts the lie to the claim of fiscal conservativism. Demanding that government penalize abortion and make it as hard to obtain as possible is just as much an unwarranted and improper exercise of government power as is the progressives' demand that government fund birth control and abortion on demand for everyone.
Second, it is social conservatives who have been fighting tooth and nail to deny any civil law recognition to relationships between two homosexuals whatsoever. That is not a matter merely of preventing it from "getting it on my TV screen or in front of me," that is a matter of denying to two homosexuals even as much recognition as is given to the relationship between a pet-owner and a pet. That is perverse. Furthermore, it is precisely social conservatives' blanket refusal to consider any sort of official civil recognition at all to those relationships that has put the traditional meaning of marriage - as it concerns and affects private associations such as churches - in such a vulnerable position. Had social conservatives not been so adamant about denying any form of recognition to gay relationships, they might have had more input on exactly what form that recognition would take, and could have used that input to build in protections for traditional marriage in its role in private affairs and private institutions such as churches. As it stands, by abdicating any constructive role in that process through their own intransigence, social conservatives have actively made it far more likely that progressives will be successful in forcing churches to start recognizing - and sanctifying - gay relationships for the purposes of internal church matters.
Third, it has been largely social conservatives, as well as other right-wing xenophobes, who have done nothing more than present negative solutions to the very difficult issues surrounding illegal immigration. Here is a very, very blunt matter of fact: there is absolutely no way to stop all illegal immigration and, furthermore, there is no way to ferret out all illegal immigrants without using a system of identification and investigation that would be orders of magnitude more intrusive on private affairs than anything the democrats/progressives have tried to implement to-date.
You talk so off-handedly about "open borders" but make very few concrete proposals for how you would close the borders. What would you do? Build a concrete wall twenty feet high, that goes a hundred or more feet underground, along the entire border with Mexico? What about the border with Canada? If a Mexican wanted to get around such a wall on the southern border he or she could travel to Canada - transiting through the US on his/her way there - and then cross into the US illegally from Canada. Heck, he or she could just jump off whatever transportation he/she is using to transit through the US in the first place and stay illegally in the US.
And since stopping all illegal immigration at the borders is impossible, what would you do about catching those who do manage to successfully enter illegally? How would you round them up? Would you require every citizen and legal resident to possess, and keep on their person at all times, an identification card? How would you handle the case where a legal immigrant - or even a citizen - of hispanic descent is accused of being an illegal immigrant because he or she doesn't have any sort of government-sanctioned identification on his or her person? Would you make them subject to deportation until and unless they could prove to the satisfaction of some bureaucratic administrative law judge that they were in fact legally entitled to be in the US?
What scares so many hispanics - including a lot of hispanic voters - is precisely that second problem: the danger that stated GOP/social conservative views on illegal immigration and enforcement of laws against illegal immigrants would necessarily result in Americans of hispanic descent - or who just happen to look hispanic or have an hispanic-sounding surname - being subjected to intrusive, demeaning investigation, searches, and arrests. Social conservatives - along with the rest of us - complain bitterly about the personal impositions from Obamacare, so it is passing strange that they cannot seem to fathom the intrusiveness into the lives of ordinary, legal, Americans that their enforcement proposals would necessarily entail.
Allied with that is the blanket refusal to consider some sort of amnesty or adjustment of status for people who, for example, have served honorably in the Armed Forces. If someone was willing to put their life on the line for this country, doesn't that deserve some sort of recognition? I think it does; I think a lot of Americans think it does; I just wonder if you do.
-
Since we're setting up strawmen, however, let me set this one up for you: Are you fine being a latter-day Nazi, rounding people up mercilessly like cattle - including children whose only "offense" is having been born and raised in the US by parents who are here illegally - packing them into railroad cars and shipping them, en masse, across the Rio Grande?
and where in the hell have I or anyone else here EVER suggested such a thing! Good God Oceander....... I have not ever heard anyone in the GOP suggest such a thing and IF YOU RECALL when Herman Cain wanted to electrocute them I was one of the most vocally against it here.... and YOU KNOW THAT!
Frankly you don't live in a border state, you are totally unaware of the utter destruction they have done to very fragile ecosystem tromping unfettered across our border. The trash that ends up in our washes and eventually in our rivers.. out here we actually have taken pride in having beautiful CLEAN rivers and lakes... the huge swaths of Arizona that American Citizens are no longer even safe to travel because the people running drugs across the border will shoot you on sight... our beautiful forests (yes we actually have them) people can no longer hike in because they bring in illegals to grow pot in the forests with orders to shoot to kill anyone who happens upon their groves...
Perhaps you are ready to just hand our country over to all this.. .I am not.... it is all well and good living up in New York City to tell those of us who live in the Southwest what we are supposed to think about illegal immigration... I grew up in California and I watched it taken over by illegals... we had our car hit twice by illegals who had zero insurance (or a license) so we had to pay for the cost of repair.....
and BTW you mock the "wall" yet the wall they constructed across the California/Mexico border is actually working quite well...... you cannot build it in a lot of places of Arizona or Texas or New Mexico, but there is other alternatives that could be utilized with technology....
You have NO IDEA how many illegals die each year trying to cross our desert in the 120 degree summer heat or die in accidents in vehicles which are grossly overloaded, or in drop houses where they are stuffed into nice neighborhoods without food or water or air-conditioning......
Either we have a border or we don't - it is that simple. We have always been a country open to immigration -- LEGAL immigration from people who have some skill to offer the country and who eventually integrate into our society.... hell my housekeeper has been here for 20 years (on a green card) and she still cannot speak one word of English... how is that for integrating??? Her daughter speaks perfect English and she does the translating for me...
The only one worried about social issues on this board is you. But if you want to pay for abortions for someone who is too lazy to use birth-control have at it... I don't care to spend my money in that manner.
-
I recommend we go back, way back to basic conservative principle. 1700s conservative issues. I finished reading a couple of books by Edmund Burke.
I read Russell Kirks The Conservative Mind. Chapter 2 was about Burke. I read the chapter twice and then went to the Library to read some of his work. Russell Kirk is excellent, but Edmund Burke is simply outstanding.
Most impressive was Burke's base statements in Reflections on the Revolution in France.
He lays plain the need for Religion as the basis for law, for Property rights, for respect of all that came before us. Much of what France stood for was change for change sake.
He compares France with England in much the same way we would compare liberal to conservative.
Burke is unsurpassed political genius of the last 300 years. Much of what he says should be carved into granite and into conservative minds.
Concepts discussed there are current to our situation. The logic is flawless, direct and simple to follow. Something that is useful when talking to the unwashed and confused that our public school systems is providing. Read both Kirk and Burk and see if you agree.
I recommend not necessarily focusing on the book, but on the argument and logic in an educational mode for Republicans be they Conservative as I am or moderate. We have to educate ourselves before we can hope to persuade another to back away from what they have been spoon fed.
I believe this strongly and have somewhat similar signatures on several forums.
-
Thoughtful post, Slide Rule.
-
I recommend we go back, way back to basic conservative principle. 1700s conservative issues. I finished reading a couple of books by Edmund Burke.
I read Russell Kirks The Conservative Mind. Chapter 2 was about Burke. I read the chapter twice and then went to the Library to read some of his work. Russell Kirk is excellent, but Edmund Burke is simply outstanding.
Most impressive was Burke's base statements in Reflections on the Revolution in France.
He lays plain the need for Religion as the basis for law, for Property rights, for respect of all that came before us. Much of what France stood for was change for change sake.
He compares France with England in much the same way we would compare liberal to conservative.
Burke is unsurpassed political genius of the last 300 years. Much of what he says should be carved into granite and into conservative minds.
Concepts discussed there are current to our situation. The logic is flawless, direct and simple to follow. Something that is useful when talking to the unwashed and confused that our public school systems is providing. Read both Kirk and Burk and see if you agree.
I recommend not necessarily focusing on the book, but on the argument and logic in an educational mode for Republicans be they Conservative as I am or moderate. We have to educate ourselves before we can hope to persuade another to back away from what they have been spoon fed.
I believe this strongly and have somewhat similar signatures on several forums.
No one who is familiar with Burke or Kirk could deny that religion and "conservativism" are inextricably linked.
-
I recommend we go back, way back to basic conservative principle. 1700s conservative issues. I finished reading a couple of books by Edmund Burke.
I read Russell Kirks The Conservative Mind. Chapter 2 was about Burke. I read the chapter twice and then went to the Library to read some of his work. Russell Kirk is excellent, but Edmund Burke is simply outstanding.
Most impressive was Burke's base statements in Reflections on the Revolution in France.
He lays plain the need for Religion as the basis for law, for Property rights, for respect of all that came before us. Much of what France stood for was change for change sake.
He compares France with England in much the same way we would compare liberal to conservative.
Burke is unsurpassed political genius of the last 300 years. Much of what he says should be carved into granite and into conservative minds.
Concepts discussed there are current to our situation. The logic is flawless, direct and simple to follow. Something that is useful when talking to the unwashed and confused that our public school systems is providing. Read both Kirk and Burk and see if you agree.
I recommend not necessarily focusing on the book, but on the argument and logic in an educational mode for Republicans be they Conservative as I am or moderate. We have to educate ourselves before we can hope to persuade another to back away from what they have been spoon fed.
I believe this strongly and have somewhat similar signatures on several forums.
Certainly this is true as a matter of historical fact. However, the further fact remains that the Constitution was specifically drafted with the view that religion would not play a mandatory role in the country's political structure and that individuals were to be free to believe as they chose, including holding - and acting on - beliefs in non-Christian deities and even in atheism.
In short, this is not, never has been, and was not intended to be, a Christian nation, or a nation of any other religion for that matter.
-
"And when we've finished kissing every illegal's ass and every damned one of them still votes for Democrats because they give them things, what will we have accomplished?"
And here we have it, the absolute essence of the problem.
When are we ever going to realize that this is an evil plot by the Amish.
That makes as much sense as all the cockamamie equine effluence that been put out by all these pundits and spinners.
The only question I would like to have answered is WHY didn't the republicans didn't show up to vote.
All this other crapola about gays, immigrants, blacks, wemins...blah blah ad infinitum ...is like pissing in the ocean.
It ain't gonna raise the tide.
(To all you lazy assed republicans that didn't vote and turned this once great nation over to this marauder for another 4 years, God forgive your sorry butts because I NEVER WILL)
-
No one who is familiar with Burke or Kirk could deny that religion and "conservativism" are inextricably linked.
When I was young I did not see the need for religion. What was the purpose? I though myself agnostic.
That changed when I was an adult. The connection between religion and conservatism is the necessary bond and further is
the basis of law.
I plan on rereading both
The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk, and
Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burk
on an annual basis to ingrain the thinking. I recommend this for those vaguely familiar with them.
And this will provide the natural response that goes down easily.
-
Certainly this is true as a matter of historical fact. However, the further fact remains that the Constitution was specifically drafted with the view that religion would not play a mandatory role in the country's political structure and that individuals were to be free to believe as they chose, including holding - and acting on - beliefs in non-Christian deities and even in atheism.
In short, this is not, never has been, and was not intended to be, a Christian nation, or a nation of any other religion for that matter.
I submit the country was purposely founded on Christian principles.
The point is that no specific religion would be endorsed by the government. Freedom FROM religious influence.
-
Certainly this is true as a matter of historical fact. However, the further fact remains that the Constitution was specifically drafted with the view that religion would not play a mandatory role in the country's political structure and that individuals were to be free to believe as they chose, including holding - and acting on - beliefs in non-Christian deities and even in atheism.
In short, this is not, never has been, and was not intended to be, a Christian nation, or a nation of any other religion for that matter.
Religion was so ingrained that it was felt unnecessary to write it into various founding documents. Our founders were familiar with a state supported religion, and they did not duplicate it in our founding documents. They were in error, first time I ever said our founders were in error, as we see in hindsight by what has happened in our parents and our own lives.
Whether a definitive statement is in our documents or not, it is in the basis of morality and law for our country.
-
Religion was so ingrained that it was felt unnecessary to write it into various founding documents. Our founders were familiar with a state supported religion, and they did not duplicate it in our founding documents. They were in error, first time I ever said our founders were in error, as we see in hindsight by what has happened in our parents and our own lives.
Whether a definitive statement is in our documents or not, it is in the basis of morality and law for our country.
"Religion was so ingrained that it was felt unnecessary to write it into various founding documents."
With all due respect, that's a rather convenient conclusion. One can apply it to all sorts of things that aren't there - sort of a pre-Constitutional penumbra to complement the penumbrae the Supreme Court has found over the years.
That being said, religion was not so ingrained that it was simply there, like water to fish, to be assumed into the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, at the very least, who was quite involved in the drafting of the Constitution, deeply questioned the role of religion in American political institutions and found that those institutions functioned best when religion was taken out of them. That is the tenor of the Virginia legislation: An Act of Establishing Religious Freedom, that Thomas Jefferson wrote.
Thus, while it is true that religion was deeply ingrained in the culture, it was not unquestioned and was not simply assumed into the Constitution. The precepts that were learned from religion might have been incorporated, but only to the extent actually written into it, and not further.
-
Well, you just go out there, DC, without the social conservatives and see how many elections you win.
I can't believe you even believe some of the things you wrote above.
They're just that galacticly stupid.
We woulda won if we'd focused on what Santorum wanted, government regulation of the internet to control online PR0N!!!
Oh yes, believe me, we'd have won in a landslide!
-
And when we've finished kissing every illegal's ass and every damned one of them still votes for Democrats because they give them things, what will we have accomplished?
I'm hunkering down. No more money to charities that work with "the deprived" who voted for Obama, not a dime for those companies in blue states (like Lands End and Vermont Country Store or LL Bean), and all credit cards have been cancelled for financial institutions in blue states.
That you think my pushing for religious liberty because I refuse to pay for contraceptives for women who can clearly afford them meant that I furnished ammunition for some fabricated "war on women" indicates to me that you're just not very astute, DC.
You're into blaming now, blaming those on your side instead of seeing just how dependent millions of people have become in this country. The dependent class is always going to vote for those who give them things, and you're never going to change that until and unless they're brought to their knees by that dependency and they have nowhere else to go but to self-sufficiency and self-reliance.
Evidence of bipolar thought. That if we aren't calling for the damnation of all illegals and their immediate deportation, execution, amputation, whatever... that it means we're calling for lip-to-anus brown-nosing and their inauguration as our new lords and masters.
Seriously, WTF?
-
I'll toss my tuppence in. These folks weren't too far removed from the Inquisition and the Salem Trials weren't really a couple of generations back. The "Age of Reason" was a response to oppressive religion in every aspect in the Middle Ages.
Stop and think about the Colonies which were settled by the Protestants compared to South and Central America which was settled by the Catholics. One is reminded of the Elizabeth I film where she warns about the Spanish Armada holding the Inquisition in their bellies.
America was definitely a product of science and a light hand of religion upon it.
-
I'll toss my tuppence in. These folks weren't too far removed from the Inquisition and the Salem Trials weren't really a couple of generations back. The "Age of Reason" was a response to oppressive religion in every aspect in the Middle Ages.
Stop and think about the Colonies which were settled by the Protestants compared to South and Central America which was settled by the Catholics. One is reminded of the Elizabeth I film where she warns about the Spanish Armada holding the Inquisition in their bellies.
America was definitely a product of science and a light hand of religion upon it.
Not to mention that many of our founding fathers were, *GASP*, Freemasons.
-
"Religion was so ingrained that it was felt unnecessary to write it into various founding documents."
With all due respect, that's a rather convenient conclusion. One can apply it to all sorts of things that aren't there - sort of a pre-Constitutional penumbra to complement the penumbrae the Supreme Court has found over the years.
That being said, religion was not so ingrained that it was simply there, like water to fish, to be assumed into the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, at the very least, who was quite involved in the drafting of the Constitution, deeply questioned the role of religion in American political institutions and found that those institutions functioned best when religion was taken out of them. That is the tenor of the Virginia legislation: An Act of Establishing Religious Freedom, that Thomas Jefferson wrote.
Thus, while it is true that religion was deeply ingrained in the culture, it was not unquestioned and was not simply assumed into the Constitution. The precepts that were learned from religion might have been incorporated, but only to the extent actually written into it, and not further.
Some founding fathers were not perfect. Look into Jefferson's moral failings. Having a national religion would be something else to spot his legacy. Franklin had similar failings.
All in all their actions benefit us today. I am grateful they were there at the time. Excepting of course a disconnect from religion.
After reading Burke, the disconnect is much clearer. Read Burke Reflections on the Revolution in France and you may agree.
It is a tight bond between conservative and religion.