The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on August 02, 2020, 01:18:00 pm
-
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/american-conservatism-is-fiddling-while-rome-burns/ (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/american-conservatism-is-fiddling-while-rome-burns/)
What is conservatism in America today? It’s hundreds of millions of dollars a year spent fiddling while Rome burns. It’s ideas with little to no consequence. It’s getting trampled all over by History, but while yelling Stop!
Conservatism is the seven cheers for capitalism and the deafening silence on demographic change, feminism, and corporate malfeasance. It’s the same tired cast of speakers blathering about limited government almost a century after the New Deal. It’s the platitudinous Reagan quotes and the worn-out Buckley anecdotes. It’s the mindless optimism and the childish exhortations—if something can’t go on forever, it won’t!
-
Oh no, someone conservative has been keeping up with the news the last 40-years and applying critical thinking. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
-
BS.... Conservatism is the refusal to participate because of purity tests and then b***ch about the result....
If you don't participate, you abdicate the right to complain.
-
I have to give this alot more thought. While I agree the Happy Warrior style of opposition has had its head handed to it by the progressive left over the past 50 years, its time we acknowledge it. It offers us no defense. That couldn't be more clear today as the left has practically declared war on us and major conservative figures seem to still have their thumbs in their butts.
Although I will never be comfortable supporting a muscular big government - today it may be kicking my enemies arse but it's just a matter of time before it oppresses me. Thats the nature of any group of humans wielding power.
-
What is conservatism in America today? It’s hundreds of millions of dollars a year spent fiddling while Rome burns. It’s ideas with little to no consequence. It’s getting trampled all over by History, but while yelling Stop!
Conservatism is the seven cheers for capitalism and the deafening silence on demographic change, feminism, and corporate malfeasance. It’s the same tired cast of speakers blathering about limited government almost a century after the New Deal. It’s the platitudinous Reagan quotes and the worn-out Buckley anecdotes. It’s the mindless optimism and the childish exhortations—if something can’t go on forever, it won’t!
----------------------------
Principled Conservatism whose champions included Plato, Ockham, Locke, Burke and
Russell Kirk in our time, has nothing (NOTHING) to do w/economics, politics and religion.
It is a body timeless principles derived from the Natural Law which governs human conduct,
enabling culture/society and the nation/state to survive and thrive.
Consider the Rule, "You cannot kill" and it's contrary,"You Can kill".
Which allows a culture/society to survive and which leads to it's demise?????
If the journo who scribbled his idiotic blather knew anything about conservatism,
he would have grasped that it deals w/the moral order of Mankind rather than
politics, the preoccupation of toddlers
-
I sense that "conservatism" insofar as it exists today -- primarily as a collection of platitudes -- is reaching a dead end. If it be an elixir, it is losing its efficacy.
In the meantime, the strength of marxism grows in The West, particularly here in the USA. Could that be because it (at least in practice) discards platitudes for visceral actions and the emotions that accompany such?
Conservatism -- at least the kind of William F. Buckley -- isn't going to derail the marxist train.
I'm not sure what will, but... whatever it may be, we'd better find it soon.
Otherwise, we're liable to get run over before we realize what hit us.
-
NO BLAME, for all the DEMON-RATS LAWS, PUT IN TO UNDERMINE OUR COUNTRY? JFK, LBJ, TEDDY? HART/CELLER ACT 1965.
THAT ACT is what started us down the path of destruction of America. DEMON-RATS...think, if anyone's foot touches our shore, they will BECOME ...AMERICAN. NOT SO. Most will not assimilate. DEMON-RATS won't change these bad immigration laws.
POTUS has talked about it for almost 4 years.
-----------------------------------------
President TRUMP has talked about this at every rally and press conference! First HE FOLLOWS THE LAWS!
second., CONGRESS WILL NOT CHANGE THE LAWS THAT HARM AMERICANS. So much for helping minorities, who now stab us in the back! IMMIGRATION LAWS that allow people from Africa, Asia,LATIN AMERICA, shithole country's , into America. THANK JFK, LBJ, TEDDY KENNEDY. NOW DEMON-RATS WON'T CHANGE LAWS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Immigration Since 1965. HISTORY.COM EDITORS
CONTENTS
Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965
Immediate Impact
Continuing Source of Debate
Immigration in the 21st Century
The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States.
Over the next four decades, the policies put into effect in 1965 would greatly change the demographic makeup of the American population, as immigrants entering the United States under the new legislation came increasingly from countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as opposed to Europe.
Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965
By the early 1960s, calls to reform U.S. immigration policy had mounted, thanks in no small part to the growing strength of the civil rights movement. At the time, immigration was based on the national-origins quota system in place since the 1920s, under which each nationality was assigned a quota based on its representation in past U.S. census figures. The civil rights movement’s focus on equal treatment regardless of race or nationality led many to view the quota system as backward and discriminatory. In particular, Greeks, Poles, Portuguese and Italians–of whom increasing numbers were seeking to enter the U.S.–claimed that the quota system discriminated against them in favor of Northern Europeans.
President John F. Kennedy even took up the immigration reform cause, giving a speech in June 1963 calling the quota system “intolerable.â€
Did you know? A report in early 2009 by the DHS's Office of Immigration Statistics estimated the number of "unauthorized immigrants" in the United States at 10.7 million, down from 11.6 million in 2008. The recent decline in immigration coincided with the economic downturn in the U.S., but figures were still up from 2000, when illegal immigrants numbered some 8.5 million.
After Kennedy’s assassination that November, Congress began debating and would eventually pass the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, co-sponsored by Representative Emanuel Celler of New York and Senator Philip Hart of Michigan and heavily supported by the late president’s brother,
Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. During Congressional debates, a number of experts testified that little would effectively change under the reformed legislation, and it was seen more as a matter of principle to have a more open policy. Indeed, on signing the act into law in October 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated that the act “is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions….It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives or add importantly to either our wealth or our power.â€
Immediate Impact
In reality (and with the benefit of hindsight), the bill signed in 1965 marked a dramatic break with past immigration policy, and would have an immediate and lasting impact. In place of the national-origins quota system, the act provided for preferences to be made according to categories, such as relatives of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, those with skills deemed useful to the United States or refugees of violence or unrest. Though it abolished quotas per se, the system did place caps on per-country and total immigration, as well as caps on each category. As in the past, family reunification was a major goal, and the new immigration policy would increasingly allow entire families to uproot themselves from other countries and reestablish their lives in the U.S.
In the first five years after the bill’s passage, immigration to the U.S. from Asian countries–especially those fleeing war-torn Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia)–would more than quadruple. (Under past immigration policies, Asian immigrants had been effectively barred from entry.) Other Cold War-era conflicts during the 1960s and 1970s saw millions of people fleeing poverty or the hardships of communist regimes in Cuba, Eastern Europe and elsewhere to seek their fortune on American shores.
All told, in the three decades following passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, more than 18 million legal immigrants entered the United States, more than three times the number admitted over the preceding 30 years.
By the end of the 20th century, the policies put into effect by the Immigration Act of 1965 had greatly changed the face of the American population.
Whereas in the 1950s, more than half of all immigrants were Europeans and just 6 percent were Asians, by the 1990s only 16 percent were Europeans and 31 percent were of Asian descent, while the percentages of Latino and African immigrants had also jumped significantly. Between 1965 and 2000, the highest number of immigrants (4.3 million) to the U.S. came from Mexico, in addition to some 1.4 million from the Philippines. Korea, the Dominican Republic, India, Cuba and Vietnam were also leading sources of immigrants, each sending between 700,000 and 800,000 over this period.
Continuing Source of Debate
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, illegal immigration was a constant source of political debate, as immigrants continue to pour into the United States, mostly by land routes through Canada and Mexico. The Immigration Reform Act in 1986 attempted to address the issue by providing better enforcement of immigration policies and creating more possibilities to seek legal immigration. The act included two amnesty programs for unauthorized aliens, and collectively granted amnesty to more than 3 million illegal aliens. Another piece of immigration legislation, the 1990 Immigration Act, modified and expanded the 1965 act, increasing the total level of immigration to 700,000. The law also provided for the admission of immigrants from “underrepresented†countries to increase the diversity of the immigrant flow.
The economic recession that hit the country in the early 1990s was accompanied by a resurgence of anti-immigrant feeling, including among lower-income Americans competing for jobs with immigrants willing to work for lower wages.
In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which addressed border enforcement and the use of social programs by immigrants.
Immigration in the 21st Century
In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which took over many immigration service and enforcement functions formerly performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). With some modifications, the policies put into place by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 are the same ones governing U.S. immigration in the early 21st century. Non-citizens currently enter the United States lawfully in one of two ways, either by receiving either temporary (non-immigrant) admission or permanent (immigrant) admission. A member of the latter category is classified as a lawful permanent resident, and receives a green card granting them eligibility to work in the United States and to eventually apply for citizenship.
There could be perhaps no greater reflection of the impact of immigration than the
2008 election of Barack Obama, the son of a Kenyan father and an American mother
-
BTW; Anyone from these countries listed and YOU are assimilated and an AMERICAN...I have no problem with you! In fact, I don't even KNOW ...where any of you are from or ethnic origin. It is general issue. Welcome to come here, legally, but don't bring your communism ....here!
-
When the voting public keeps sliding to the left with each vote eventually you reach the point the slide turns sharply towards ground level.
Voters have voted more RINOs in office the past decade that congress is basically middle of the road and swings to the left.
Because voters have no point of saying no to voting in RINOs, we have moved further towards the abyss. The lesser of two evils voter mentality is to blame.
-
When the voting public keeps sliding to the left with each vote eventually you reach the point the slide turns sharply towards ground level.
Voters have voted more RINOs in office the past decade that congress is basically middle of the road and swings to the left.
Because voters have no point of saying no to voting in RINOs, we have moved further towards the abyss. The lesser of two evils voter mentality is to blame.
That's right... Conservatism and Conservatives have NOTHING to do with what's going on.
-
That's right... Conservatism and Conservatives have NOTHING to do with what's going on.
Thank you for proving Mr. Azerrad's thesis.
-
When the voting public keeps sliding to the left with each vote eventually you reach the point the slide turns sharply towards ground level.
Voters have voted more RINOs in office the past decade that congress is basically middle of the road and swings to the left.
Because voters have no point of saying no to voting in RINOs, we have moved further towards the abyss. The lesser of two evils voter mentality is to blame.
:amen: Unfortunately we have gotten to the point where there aren't enough conservatives running to unseat the RINO's, OR leadership sides with and funds the RINO incumbents.
-
That's right... Conservatism and Conservatives have NOTHING to do with what's going on.
I agree with you. Here's why ...
... this new Right has a decidedly unconservative temperament. It is spirited, manly, and combative. We fight with the same intensity, resolve, and clarity of purpose with which the Left fights. And we fight not to stem our losses, but to win.
This new Right understands not just ideas, but power. ... We understand the need to build new institutions—in particular those with the power to shape public opinion—
We also understand the importance of knowing how to govern.
(FTA)
-
:amen: Unfortunately we have gotten to the point where there aren't enough conservatives running to unseat the RINO's, OR leadership sides with and funds the RINO incumbents.
Conservatives need to stop whining and pointing fingers. As Mr. Azerrad suggests: Offer the people solutions for today's problems; show how the solutions will be implemented and prove that you are up to the challenge --- and the people will come.
Stop fiddling while the nation burns.
-
Conservatives need to stop whining and pointing fingers. As Mr. Azerrad suggests: Offer the people solutions for today's problems; show how the solutions will be implemented and prove that you are up to the challenge --- and the people will come.
Stop fiddling while the nation burns.
It isn't a matter of whining it's a matter of not continuing to vote in the same RINO's that got us to where we are today; moving further and further towards the left!
-
Conservatives need to stop whining and pointing fingers. As Mr. Azerrad suggests: Offer the people solutions for today's problems; show how the solutions will be implemented and prove that you are up to the challenge --- and the people will come.
Stop fiddling while the nation burns.
There is not a thing wrong with the ideology espoused by Barry Goldwater 60 years ago. The good Trump has done or has tried to do - border security, regulations reform, energy independence, reduction of military involvement in foreign countries, originalist judges, etc. - are all in accord with classic Conservatism, whether he calls himself one or not.
It's our tactics of how we take and hold political power that must change.
-
Conservatives need to stop whining and pointing fingers. As Mr. Azerrad suggests: Offer the people solutions for today's problems; show how the solutions will be implemented and prove that you are up to the challenge --- and the people will come.
Stop fiddling while the nation burns.
Or...people could just go on bitching and browbeating others for not being “conservative enough†while winnable elections slip through their fingers searching for the perfect conservative. (Since he’s dead, Goldwater was unavailable for comment)
-
Or...people could just go on bitching and browbeating others for not being “conservative enough†while winnable elections slip through their fingers searching for the perfect conservative. (Since he’s dead, Goldwater was unavailable for comment)
We have a Senate with RINO leadership who has proven time and time again to be detrimental not only to the party but to conservatism itself. We had control of the House but because of RINO leadership we lost that House majority.
It's not a matter of browbeating for not being conservative enough; it's truth.
Proposing that we continue to vote in RINO's and expecting a different result is ludicrous. Meanwhile ... Rome burns
-
Reagan didn’t check off every conservative box. William F. Buckley Jr. didn’t check off every conservative box. For heavens sake, Goldwater didn’t check off every conservative box.
Conservatives need dynamic leaders, not just ideologues draped in conservative purity.
-
Conservatives need to stop whining and pointing fingers. As Mr. Azerrad suggests: Offer the people solutions for today's problems; show how the solutions will be implemented and prove that you are up to the challenge --- and the people will come.
Stop fiddling while the nation burns.
:amen:
We need problem-solvers! That's why I can't wait until President Trump unveils his big healthcare plan he promoted during that July 19th interview with Chris Wallace:
"We’re signing a health-care plan within two weeks, a full and complete health-care plan.â€
It's a day or two past his own deadline, but I am certain that it's coming this week. After all, what kind of deficient, defective fraud would make such a statement--during a pandemic when so many of his fellow Americans have grave concerns about health coverage--if it wasn't true? Conservatives would never tolerate pie-in-the-sky, lying-ass politicians. That's the Left's milieu.
-
Reagan didn’t check off every conservative box. William F. Buckley Jr. didn’t check off every conservative box. For heavens sake, Goldwater didn’t check off every conservative box.
Conservatives need dynamic leaders, not just ideologues draped in conservative purity.
The GOP Party has very few conservatives in Congress and the same RINO's and failed leadership keep getting voted in. Until that scenario changes, the GOP will continue to veer left and the DEMS will continues to head towards socialism. Rome is burning.
I believe Trump to be a leader. Yes, I have issues with how he has handled the riots and his intent to grant a roadway to citizenship with DACA. He has made some accomplishments that have taken this country in a more positive direction. Can you imagine if he had conservative leadership in the Senate and a Senate devoid of RINO's what he could accomplish? Can you imagine if we would have had conservative leadership in the House instead of a RINO? We would still have the majority.
Whether or not Trump is a conservative is not the issue in my eyes here, the issue is people voting in the same RINO's thinking things are going to change. Again, the other issue is there aren't enough conservatives to replace those RINO's so the RINO incumbents stay.
The ONLY way that this cycle of madness is going to stop is if people put their foot down and refuse to vote for RINO's.
The very worst thing Trump can do to conservatism and the GOP right now is to grant amnesty to DACA; not only will he be giving his base the middle finger but he will annihilate the GOP's chance of every being seated again and destroy any chance of conservatism in the future...meanwhile Rome is burning.
-
:amen:
We need problem-solvers! That's why I can't wait until President Trump unveils his big healthcare plan he promoted during that July 19th interview with Chris Wallace:
"We’re signing a health-care plan within two weeks, a full and complete health-care plan.â€
It's a day or two past his own deadline, but I am certain that it's coming this week. After all, what kind of deficient, defective fraud would make such a statement--during a pandemic when so many of his fellow Americans have grave concerns about health coverage--if it wasn't true? Conservatives would never tolerate pie-in-the-sky, lying-ass politicians. That's the Left's milieu.
In another interview Trump stated:
"No, what I'm going to do is that they're going to part of a much bigger bill on immigration. It's going to be a very big bill, a very good bill, and merit-based bill and it will include DACA, and I think people are going to be very happy," said Trump.
"But one of the aspects of the bill is going to be DACA. We're going to have a road to citizenship," he added.
That isn't problem solving; that is adding fuel to the already existing fire!!
In another interview Trump stated:
"We cannot and must not allow a small group of criminals and vandals to wreck our cities and lay waste to our communities," Trump said in Florida after watching the successful launch of a SpaceX rocket Saturday.
"My administration will stop mob violence. And we'll stop it cold."
Here we sit....meanwhile Rome is burning.
-
We have a Senate with RINO leadership who has proven time and time again to be detrimental not only to the party but to conservatism itself. We had control of the House but because of RINO leadership we lost that House majority.
The Republican Party is a center-right party. It is not a conservative party. I wish people would understand this so they could appreciate how foolish they sound when they throw out "RINO" as a pejorative. Conservatives are a minority in a minority party.
I don't know what folks think happened in the 1980s ... but it was not a sea change shift to inbred conservatism. The 1980s was a decade of American populism ... a rising up of the American voter to save the American economy, the American dream and American global prestige --- much like what is happening in part today.
The difference is today's populists are not going to retreat from the battle we're in. We are not going to waste time playing with our bow ties and pinning for an imperfect man who was perfect for the times in which he lived. We're going to keep marching forward with more than admonishments and lectures --- we're marching forward with strategies to take back power. The power to affect true change and return the institutions of the government to its rightful roots. We're going to take it all back. All of it.
And we're not doing it as "conservatives".
So we do not have time or patience for "RINO" nonsense or purity tests or numbnuts trimming their navel hair on the sidelines waiting for the masses to beg for their leadership. We are growing to despise you for the ineffectual annoyances you've become.
Conservatives need to stop thinking more of themselves than they have the right to think. Stop pointing fingers. Stop whining.
And most of all, get the hell out of the way.
-
The Republican Party is a center-right party. It is not a conservative party. I wish people would understand this so they could appreciate how foolish they sound when they throw out "RINO" as a pejorative. Conservatives are a minority in a minority party.
I don't know what folks think happened in the 1980s ... but it was not a sea change shift to inbred conservatism. The 1980s was a decade of American populism ... a rising up of the American voter to save the American economy, the American dream and American global prestige --- much like what is happening in part today.
The difference is today's populists are not going to retreat from the battle we're in. We are not going to waste time playing with our bow ties and pinning for an imperfect man who was perfect for the times in which he lived. We're going to keep marching forward with more than admonishments and lectures --- we're marching forward with strategies to take back power. The power to affect true change and return the institutions of the government to its rightful roots. We're going to take it all back. All of it.
And we're not doing it as "conservatives".
So we do not have time or patience for "RINO" nonsense or purity tests or numbnuts trimming their navel hair on the sidelines waiting for the masses to beg for their leadership. We are growing to despise you for the ineffectual annoyances you've become.
Conservatives need to stop thinking more of themselves than they have the right to think. Stop pointing fingers. Stop whining.
And most of all, get the hell out of the way.
Excuse me but this country was founded upon conservative principles!!! We have ventured too far away from those principles and that is why we have the problems that we are experiencing today. Get the hell out of the way to make room for liberals and RINO's -- maybe that's what you would like to see, but I don't see that as an option for me!!
-
The problem with republicans today is that they say nothing...just wait for things to pass. They aren't leaders anymore, they are in the backseat so they can have a nap when things get rough. This was a long video, 13 minutes, and sorry about that, but you can skip the first 60 seconds, it's just intro! More or less bashing republicans, but hey Ad Hominem ya know? Not bashing their principles, just their silence during this violence and unrest. I swing much more libertarian so I have no camp at all...lol. But I think I summed it up fairly well!
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R687Il7Icrk#)
-
The problem with republicans today is that they say nothing...just wait for things to pass. They aren't leaders anymore, they are in the backseat so they can have a nap when things get rough. This was a long video, 13 minutes, and sorry about that, but you can skip the first 60 seconds, it's just intro! More or less bashing republicans, but hey Ad Hominem ya know? Not bashing their principles, just their silence during this violence and unrest. I swing much more libertarian so I have no camp at all...lol. But I think I summed it up fairly well!
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R687Il7Icrk#)
Exactly why I voted for Trump... Tired of empty promises, and K Street sheep....
-
The last actual conservative to occupy the Whitehouse was Calvin Coolidge. The last one who actually became a major party nominee was Barry Goldwater and he may well be the last one ever to do so.
-
The problem with republicans today is that they say nothing...just wait for things to pass. They aren't leaders anymore, they are in the backseat so they can have a nap when things get rough. This was a long video, 13 minutes, and sorry about that, but you can skip the first 60 seconds, it's just intro! More or less bashing republicans, but hey Ad Hominem ya know? Not bashing their principles, just their silence during this violence and unrest. I swing much more libertarian so I have no camp at all...lol. But I think I summed it up fairly well!
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R687Il7Icrk#)
:yowsa: A bunch of damned porch nails afraid to poke their heads up for fear of being hit on the head with the establishment hammer!
-
Why NOT blame the evil demon-rats? Always beating up the ONLY guys trying to keep us safe & free. RINO'S..are worthless.
Wrong people are being vilified. "We do this...all the time! ". TIME TO PUT BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS...ON DEMON-RATS. Who are Anti-Americans. How about giving THAT a try? 'They" want us to bash the right & republicans. TIME TO STOP.
If it weren't for all the ANTI-AMERICAN ANTICS by demon-rats...REPUBLICANS, WOULD NOT NEED TO REACT or fight against them. RINO'S..are the problem, not real Republicans. BTW I tested out to be LIBERTARIAN. I think most people on the right, just want to live & let live. Not so with demon-rats. THEY WANT US TO BE SLAVES TO THEM! Think I exaggerate? Did you see all the foot and hand kissing for B.L.M.S by white people. Bowing down to them.
-
Conservatives need to stop whining and pointing fingers. As Mr. Azerrad suggests: Offer the people solutions for today's problems; show how the solutions will be implemented and prove that you are up to the challenge --- and the people will come.
Stop fiddling while the nation burns.
:thumbsup:
I personally am sick of the virtue signalers, who think my POTUS is not pure enough for them, when if they knew all the debauchery on the DEMON-RAT side, they would be grateful for my POTUS. S.O.S.
-
Or...people could just go on bitching and browbeating others for not being “conservative enough†while winnable elections slip through their fingers searching for the perfect conservative. (Since he’s dead, Goldwater was unavailable for comment)
CORRECT. 888high58888
-
There is not a thing wrong with the ideology espoused by Barry Goldwater 60 years ago. The good Trump has done or has tried to do - border security, regulations reform, energy independence, reduction of military involvement in foreign countries, originalist judges, etc. - are all in accord with classic Conservatism, whether he calls himself one or not.
It's our tactics of how we take and hold political power that must change.
HIGH FIVE! :patriot:
POTUS is a conservative. It is MEDIA and others (virtue signalers) who think that he isn't one. As you pointed out, ALL his policy's and effort are conservative. A lot of beta males, have TRUMP Envy from 30 + years ago! They can't get over their envy issues. www.magapill.com (http://www.magapill.com)
-
Reagan didn’t check off every conservative box. William F. Buckley Jr. didn’t check off every conservative box. For heavens sake, Goldwater didn’t check off every conservative box.
Conservatives need dynamic leaders, not just ideologues draped in conservative purity.
[/b]
When will VIRTUE SIGNALERS....GET THAT? ( I doubt they ever will, "THEIR PURITY" is more important)
:hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :patriot: :seeya:
-
I believe Trump to be a leader. Yes, I have issues with how he has handled the riots and his intent to grant a roadway to citizenship with DACA. He has made some accomplishments that have taken this country in a more positive direction. Can you imagine if he had conservative leadership in the Senate and a Senate devoid of RINO's what he could accomplish? Can you imagine if we would have had conservative leadership in the House instead of a RINO? We would still have the majority.
Why do you keep repeating your wrong PREMISS? It has been explained many times to you, but you persist. POTUS did not guarantee any amnesty. Why do you persist? RIOTS? STATES RIGHTS. You do not understand chain of command. You want POTUS to act like a dictator and Rambo, instead of following the CONSTITUTION. S.C. is still working on DACA ISSUE. It was put in by OBAMA with an E.O., yet S.C., won't allow a removal of that by THIS POTUS E.O. Why?
The plan is to return all. Then, they can apply, to come here legally, if no criminal record, and become citizens.
I think that is fair, all the way around. ANCHOR BABY'S..born here by their ILLEGAL PARENTS.
Yes, I have issues with how he has handled the riots and his intent to grant a roadway to citizenship with DACA. =LIBERTY
-
The last actual conservative to occupy the Whitehouse was Calvin Coolidge. The last one who actually became a major party nominee was Barry Goldwater and he may well be the last one ever to do so.
--------------------------
On the mark.
-
And we're not doing it as "conservatives".
Well that much can't be argued with. But then stop claiming to be conservatives.
And most of all, get the hell out of the way.
Oh I am all the way the hell out of the way alright.
-
Why do you keep repeating your wrong PREMISS? It has been explained many times to you, but you persist. POTUS did not guarantee any amnesty. Why do you persist? RIOTS? STATES RIGHTS. You do not understand chain of command. You want POTUS to act like a dictator and Rambo, instead of following the CONSTITUTION. S.C. is still working on DACA ISSUE. It was put in by OBAMA with an E.O., yet S.C., won't allow a removal of that by THIS POTUS E.O. Why?
The plan is to return all. Then, they can apply, to come here legally, if no criminal record, and become citizens.
I think that is fair, all the way around. ANCHOR BABY'S..born here by their ILLEGAL PARENTS.
Yes, I have issues with how he has handled the riots and his intent to grant a roadway to citizenship with DACA. =LIBERTY
The information that I have posted is NOT wrong; unless you believe that what POTUS says and does are two different things and I AM entitled to my opinion just as you are yours. He has been quoted several times in regards to his intent to grant a roadway to citizenship for DACA; perhaps you don't see that as amnesty, but I sure as heck do. He has also been quoted several times about his use of the Insurrection Act/military. It is you who refuses to acknowledge what he has said. Yes, I take issue with his stance on both.
-
Or...people could just go on bitching and browbeating others for not being “conservative enough†while winnable elections slip through their fingers searching for the perfect conservative. (Since he’s dead, Goldwater was unavailable for comment)
Or y'all could stop trying to bitch and browbeat Conservatives into voting for your clown, while not offering a DAMN thing Conservatives would be interested in.
-
I see this as two seperate issues.
1. A holding action in order to live and fight another day.
2. Educating folks and promoting consevertism.
Not going to browbeat anyone.
-
I agree with you. Here's why ...
... this new Right has a decidedly unconservative temperament. It is spirited, manly, and combative. We fight with the same intensity, resolve, and clarity of purpose with which the Left fights. And we fight not to stem our losses, but to win.
This new Right understands not just ideas, but power. ... We understand the need to build new institutions—in particular those with the power to shape public opinion—
We also understand the importance of knowing how to govern.
(FTA)
The 'new right' is un-conservative in every way, to include temperment.
It has no clarity of purpose and 'fights' for nothing. Winning is all and means nothing.
Grabbing for power is right, but knowing how to govern? BWAHAHAHAHA.
-
That's right... Conservatism and Conservatives have NOTHING to do with what's going on.
----------------------------------------
@Roamer, indeed.
As you realize, it does not take genius to grasp an idea; simply pause and reflection rather than
hustle and noise.
But that is a bridge too far for the predictable ranters, so the result is another endless scrum of
blame and responsibility posts.
Principled Conservatism was and remains first, last and always, an idea as to the attitudes,
behaviors, impulses and sentiments necessary for culture/society to survive and thrive.
Logic allowed Man to examine the Natural Law and discern the precepts that would best achieve that result, permitting the wise ancients to define the moral order of principled conservatism, which had nothing to do w/economics, politics or religion.
At its core, is the Principle of Prescription which asserts that the precedent of matters agreed
by timeless usage, is eternally superior to any current whim.
Yet what is our claimed savior, by those castigating conservatism, from our morass???
Why it's better politics and politicians, the very garbage who brought us to our present nadir!!!
LORD HAVE MERCY!!!
-
Excuse me but this country was founded upon conservative principles!!!
Excuse me but this country was founded BY doers ... smart, courageous doers and not whiners.
-
----------------------------------------
@Roamer, indeed.
As you realize, it does not take genius to grasp an idea; simply pause and reflection rather than
hustle and noise.
But that is a bridge too far for the predictable ranters, so the result is another endless scrum of
blame and responsibility posts.
Principled Conservatism was and remains first, last and always, an idea as to the attitudes,
behaviors, impulses and sentiments necessary for culture/society to survive and thrive.
Logic allowed Man examine the Natural Law and discern the precepts that would best achieve
that result, permitting the wise ancients to define the moral order of principled conservatism,
which had nothing to do w/economics, politics or religion.
At its core, is the Principle of Prescription which asserts that the precedent of matters agreed
by timeless usage, is eternally superior to any current whim.
Yet what is our claimed savior, from those castigating conservatism, for our morass???
Why it's better politics and politicians, the very garbage who brought us to our present nadir!!!
LORD HAVE MERCY!!!
@Absalom
It will be of no great surprise that I will largely align in agreement with you.
I can see no reason to support those who, in their ignorance, fail to support the very principles which through all of history have proven to be the engine which lifts people out of poverty and slavery, and are the remedy to every destitution, having proven over and over and over again to be the same.
And it is of little wonder that the cacophony encompassing the so-called right can be predicted to lead away from that blessing, and therefore lead to its opposite.
-
The 'new right' is un-conservative in every way, to include temperment. It has no clarity of purpose and 'fights' for nothing. Winning is all and means nothing.
Get over yourself. The old, toxic conservatives have become a laughingstock; a mere caricature of the patriot they think they are.
Their embrace of "temperment" has them campaigning for Marxists --- and has made them a pox on the body politic.
-
Get over yourself. The old, toxic conservatives have become a laughingstock; a mere caricature of the patriot they think they are.
Their embrace of "tempement" has them campaigning for Marxists --- and has made them a pox on the body politic.
Foolishness. Conservatives stand for Conservatism, and nothing else. And I do not know a single Conservative who campaigns for Marxists... Marxism as a movement is every bit a bane to conservatism as is yours.
-
Foolishness. Conservatives stand for Conservatism, and nothing else.
You've become unnecessary background noise.
-
You've become unnecessary background noise.
Truth is often subsumed by cacophony.
-
Get over yourself. The old, toxic conservatives have become a laughingstock; a mere caricature of the patriot they think they are.
Their embrace of "temperment" has them campaigning for Marxists --- and has made them a pox on the body politic.
I posit that if "they" are now campaigning for Marxists.... they were never true conservatives in the first place. Conservatives don't change their spots like that (like leftists do).
-
Truth is often subsumed by cacophony.
The difference is... your brand of "cacophony" sung here accomplishes nothing positive for America. Absolutely nothing. And some might say it accomplishes just the opposite. :whistle:
-
And yeah, here we go again (et tu brute)....lol.
-
I posit that if "they" are now campaigning for Marxists.... they were never true conservatives in the first place. Conservatives don't change their spots like that (like leftists do).
But they are the brand bearers.
-
Or y'all could stop trying to bitch and browbeat Conservatives into voting for your clown, while not offering a DAMN thing Conservatives would be interested in.
@roamer_1 @Right_in_Virginia
Here is where I am at and where all the usual browbeaters OF CONSERVATIVES (!!!) should be:
I believe that, while trump is far from perfect, he has satisfied ME, and ME ALONE, to warrant my vote come re-election time. I also accept that he has not done that for you who hold other, different principles in high regard than I do. I hope you join me, because we need all the help we can get. But if not, I tip my hat to you because I’d rather you fight with me than against me.
But, nah, instead we can just call each other traitorous @sshole$ because that’s much more productive
-
But they are the brand bearers.
The brand has been soiled and all but demolished. We need a new brand.
-
The difference is... your brand of "cacophony" sung here accomplishes nothing positive for America. Absolutely nothing. And some might say it accomplishes just the opposite. :whistle:
Exactly the opposite is true. I have never moved an inch from the same things I have always preached.
If we are now out of agreement, it cannot be me who has moved.
-
Exactly the opposite is true. I have never moved an inch from the same things I have always preached.
If we are now out of agreement, it cannot be me who has moved.
No, it may not be you that has changed stance... but that's only because you are a stubborn old coot who probably never has "changed" your stance...
despite the harshness of reality smacking you upside the head....lololol.
-
No, it may not be you that has changed stance... but that's only because you are a stubborn old coot who probably never has "changed" your stance...
despite the harshness of reality smacking you upside the head....lololol.
Perhaps some research into the 'principle of prescription' as mentioned by @Absalom might shed some light on that stubbornness, and why it is necessary. Reality is found therein.
-
No, it may not be you that has changed stance... but that's only because you are a stubborn old coot who probably never has "changed" your stance...
despite the harshness of reality smacking you upside the head....lololol.
(https://memeguy.com/photos/thumbs/round-we-go-25989.gif)
-
@roamer_1 @Right_in_Virginia
Here is where I am at and where all the usual browbeaters OF CONSERVATIVES (!!!) should be:
I believe that, while trump is far from perfect, he has satisfied ME, and ME ALONE, to warrant my vote come re-election time. I also accept that he has not done that for you who hold other, different principles in high regard than I do. I hope you join me, because we need all the help we can get. But if not, I tip my hat to you because I’d rather you fight with me than against me.
But, nah, instead we can just call each other traitorous @sshole$ because that’s much more productive
@Axeslinger - I can pretty well agree with that, with the exception that it does not serve or define Conservatism, which is, I am told, what we gather here to support. If Tumpists want to call themselves nationalists and/or pragmatists, I would have no argument.
But I would still point and laugh from the sidelines.
-
The brand has been soiled and all but demolished. We need a new brand.
I agree ... and I think one is emerging now. happy77
-
@roamer_1 @Right_in_Virginia
Here is where I am at and where all the usual browbeaters OF CONSERVATIVES (!!!) should be:
I believe that, while trump is far from perfect, he has satisfied ME, and ME ALONE, to warrant my vote come re-election time. I also accept that he has not done that for you who hold other, different principles in high regard than I do. I hope you join me, because we need all the help we can get. But if not, I tip my hat to you because I’d rather you fight with me than against me.
But, nah, instead we can just call each other traitorous @sshole$ because that’s much more productive
Instead of browbeating me for posting on a thread about the failures of conservatism ... maybe you could work your magic with the mods and have such articles banned? :shrug:
-
I agree ... and I think one is emerging now. happy77
Yet another hyphenated misanthropy.
-
@Axeslinger - I can pretty well agree with that, with the exception that it does not serve or define Conservatism, which is, I am told, what we gather here to support. If Tumpists want to call themselves nationalists and/or pragmatists, I would have no argument.
But I would still point and laugh from the sidelines.
@roamer_1
Both sides here should strive for intellectual honesty and not trying to rub each other’s noses in it.
I have arrived, after a long while, where I can vote for Trump. Not because he’s perfect, but because he’s what we’ve got and he’s been generally better than I expected. You have not. Cool. I know you’ll join us in fighting all the other fights we have on our plate because damn if we don’t need you!
-
Perhaps some research into the 'principle of prescription' as mentioned by @Absalom might shed some light on that stubbornness, and why it is necessary. Reality is found therein.
I'm stubborn too, but being a realist trumps (pardon expression) my stubborn nature. I change according to what my logic tells me. I just don't find that kind (your kind) of stubbornness to be helpful at this time in our nation's orchestrated demise by the left. JS....
-
Yet another hyphenated misanthropy.
Huh? Hey, old dear.... if you're trying to dazzle us with your brilliance via those big words....
you're failing....
miserably. :silly: :silly: :silly:
-
Instead of browbeating me for posting on a thread about the failures of conservatism ... maybe you could work your magic with the mods and have such articles banned? :shrug:
Really?!? You’re calling for things to be banned here because they offend your sensibilities?
Or...
You could just pass on by this bad boy. Boom! No harm, no foul!
Remember the good ol days? Something was on the tv you didn’t like? Why, you’d just go to another channel! Crazy, right?
-
@roamer_1
Both sides here should strive for intellectual honesty and not trying to rub each other’s noses in it.
I have arrived, after a long while, where I can vote for Trump. Not because he’s perfect, but because he’s what we’ve got and he’s been generally better than I expected. You have not. Cool. I know you’ll join us in fighting all the other fights we have on our plate because damn if we don’t need you!
:beer:
-
I'm stubborn too, but being a realist trumps (pardon expression) my stubborn nature. I change according to what my logic tells me. I just don't find that kind (your kind) of stubbornness to be helpful at this time in our nation's orchestrated demise by the left. JS....
Knock yourself out Don't expect me to come along.
-
I've been watching this thread scroll up and down my Unread Posts page for days....afraid to see what's going on in here.....
888what
-
Huh? Hey, old dear.... if you're trying to dazzle us with your brilliance via those big words....
you're failing....
miserably. :silly: :silly: :silly:
I do know some 5 dollar words. And I meant exactly what I said.
-
Knock yourself out Don't expect me to come along.
Don't worry. I don't.
-
I do know some 5 dollar words. And I meant exactly what I said.
You forgot to add..."So there!". :rolling:
-
I've been watching this thread scroll up and down my Unread Posts page for days....afraid to see what's going on in here.....
888what
We're just having fun, CL. You know... the ssdd "bicker factor". An eternal constant in the universe. :laugh:
Cute smiley, btw.
-
I've been watching this thread scroll up and down my Unread Posts page for days....afraid to see what's going on in here.....
888what
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.NgW9M6LoBg-F9JXiNMh93AHaKW%26pid%3DApi%26h%3D160&f=1)
-
We're just having fun, CL. You know... the ssdd "bicker factor". An eternal constant in the universe. :laugh:
Cute smiley, btw.
Well, I can say there haven't been any Mod reports filed on it.... 888mouth
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.NgW9M6LoBg-F9JXiNMh93AHaKW%26pid%3DApi%26h%3D160&f=1)
I made that into a smiley, down at the bottom of the pop-up window.
:dumpster:
-
Well, I can say there haven't been any Mod reports filed on it.... 888mouth
Nah. No need.
-
I've been watching this thread scroll up and down my Unread Posts page for days....afraid to see what's going on in here.....
888what
LOL! I've purposefully stayed out of it. (Although, @Right_in_Virginia was kicking ass and taking names...again --sigh!!)
Nobody is going to give an inch. And some birds just keep preening.
-
Really?!? You’re calling for things to be banned here because they offend your sensibilities?
Or you could just pass on by this bad boy. Boom! No harm, no foul!
Remember the good ol days? Something was on the tv you didn’t like? Why, you’d just go to another channel! Crazy, right?
--------------------------------
@ Axel, a thought for you.
It appears you're trying to exchange ideas yet hitting a concrete wall.
Should be no surprise as closed minds treat contrary opinions as mortal enemies.
So here's an opinion for you.
The republicrat mindset shares the same essence as that of democrats, for a direct
reason; as neither is motivated by principle; only politics.
Further, their political motor is fueled by the economic wants of their class supporters.
As a consequence, there is no place for Principled Conservatism in our governance. But why?
Because it was birthed in ancient times which had a far greater grasp of the vital importance
of the spiritual in the life of Man.
Yet that all faded away during the French Enlightenment which asserted that material betterment was Man's higher calling.
Mankind has been experiencing the impact of that nostrum for some 250 years and his
world is hardly better off for it, as the tale of history remains mute testament.
-
Pecan pie ... lemon meringue pie ... pecan pie ... lemon meringue pie ... pecan pie ... lemon meringue pie ... pecan pie ... lemon meringue pie ...
-
(https://www.williams-sonoma.com/wsimgs/rk/images/dp/recipe/201707/0022/img17l.jpg)
-
Really?!? You’re calling for things to be banned here because they offend your sensibilities?
Actually @Axeslinger I was responding to your sensibilities. I thought your upset over this discussion was sincere and just threw out the first remedy I could think of. Of course I don't want anything banned, but I also don't want you in distress.
I'll end this catch-22 by withdrawing my suggestion. :beer:
-
(https://www.talkinfrench.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/brie.jpg)
-
(https://www.talkinfrench.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/brie.jpg)
Exactly:
We are not 'fiddling' (well yes we are, a little fiddle never hurt nothing) we are just waiting...
-
bele wrote:
"Excuse me but this country was founded upon conservative principles!!!"
Off-topic replay that going to rub folks here the wrong way, but i'm posting it anyway.
I usually like what you write, bele, but I think you could be wrong here.
"Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..."
... is NOT a "conservative" principle -- at least not when Jefferson wrote it.
Au contraire, it was a radically liberal and "enlightened" idea at that time.
And... it has a lot to do with why all the nations of The West are facing ruin today...
-
bele wrote:
"Excuse me but this country was founded upon conservative principles!!!"
Off-topic replay that going to rub folks here the wrong way, but i'm posting it anyway.
I usually like what you write, bele, but I think you could be wrong here.
"Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..."
... is NOT a "conservative" principle -- at least not when Jefferson wrote it.
Au contraire, it was a radically liberal and "enlightened" idea at that time.
And... it has a lot to do with why all the nations of The West are facing ruin today...
That was when "Liberal" meant conservative, and "Conservative" meant Tudor.
-
xena wrote:
"The brand has been soiled and all but demolished. We need a new brand."
I agree.
In my posts here for the past several years, I generally use the term, "traditional-minded Americans".
Does that fit with what you're thinking..?
-
Actually @Axeslinger I was responding to your sensibilities. I thought your upset over this discussion was sincere and just threw out the first remedy I could think of. Of course I don't want anything banned, but I also don't want you in distress.
I'll end this catch-22 by withdrawing my suggestion. :beer:
@Right_in_Virginia
I wasn’t upset. I was offering you a path forward without considering your fellow Briefers traitors to THE cause. Because the only thing they may be traitors to are to YOUR cause and the two are not mutually inclusive. But there are none so blind as those who will not see.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
I wasn’t upset. I was offering you a path forward without considering your fellow Briefers traitors to THE cause. Because the only thing they may be traitors to are to YOUR cause and the two are not mutually inclusive. But there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Some day we should have a beer and clear all the stale air between us. @Axeslinger I think we'd get along much better than expected. happy77
-
Some day we should have a beer and clear all the stale air between us. @Axeslinger I think we'd get along much better than expected. happy77
@Axeslinger @Right_in_Virginia
I am looking forward to that, because it's true.
-
bele wrote:
"Excuse me but this country was founded upon conservative principles!!!"
Off-topic replay that going to rub folks here the wrong way, but i'm posting it anyway.
I usually like what you write, bele, but I think you could be wrong here.
"Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..."
... is NOT a "conservative" principle -- at least not when Jefferson wrote it.
Au contraire, it was a radically liberal and "enlightened" idea at that time.
And... it has a lot to do with why all the nations of The West are facing ruin today...
For what it's worth @Fishrrman http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/what-were-the-founding-principles (http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/what-were-the-founding-principles)
-
I see this as two seperate issues.
1. A holding action in order to live and fight another day.
2. Educating folks and promoting consevertism.
Not going to browbeat anyone.
:beer:
-
Some day we should have a beer and clear all the stale air between us. @Axeslinger I think we'd get along much better than expected. happy77
@Right_in_Virginia
See...but once upon a time, I WAS one of those that you implied was a traitor to the cause...and I haven’t forgotten it. It’s how you came to be on my radar in the first place. And golly, there’s just nothing quite like implying a veteran who loves this country is a traitor. It kinda gets stuck in my craw.
BUT
I will take your comment in the spirit in which it was intended and wish you well.
-
bele wrote:
"Excuse me but this country was founded upon conservative principles!!!"
Off-topic replay that going to rub folks here the wrong way, but i'm posting it anyway.
I usually like what you write, bele, but I think you could be wrong here.
"Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..."
... is NOT a "conservative" principle -- at least not when Jefferson wrote it.
Au contraire, it was a radically liberal and "enlightened" idea at that time.
And... it has a lot to do with why all the nations of The West are facing ruin today...
---------------------------
@ Fish, insightful and well done.
Some 2,500 years past, Plato asserted the Soul of Man defined his
uniqueness for all eternity and as such we are emphatically not equal.
The Enlightenment slogan of 'Egalitarianism' spawned the notion of the
equality of Man, which is simply a political slogan of horse manure.
Jefferson was a great man but like all had his foibles, one being his fondness
for French values and women as he was our Minister to France in 1785-89.
-
---------------------------
@ Fish, insightful and well done.
Some 2,500 years past, Plato asserted the Soul of Man defined his
uniqueness for all eternity and as such we are emphatically not equal.
The Enlightenment slogan of 'Egalitarianism' spawned the notion of the
equality of Man, which is simply a political slogan of horse manure.
Jefferson was a great man but like all had his foibles, one being his fondness
for French values and women as he was our Minister to France in 1785-89.
I will counter your statement: In fact, that all men are created equal in the sight of God, and under the law, is a profoundly Conservative position. It is not a measure of the man, but a measure of the system. The phrase is meant to portray blind justice under the law, and the casting down of artificial obstacles, allowing a man to reach for his own potential with no intrusion or imposition by others.
-
I will counter your statement: In fact, that all men are created equal in the sight of God, and under the law, is a profoundly Conservative position. It is not a measure of the man, but a measure of the system. The phrase is meant to portray blind justice under the law, and the casting down of artificial obstacles, allowing a man to reach for his own potential with no intrusion or imposition by others.
:yowsa: pointing-up
-
I will counter you each and every one of us, the astonshing r statement: In fact, that all men are created equal in the sight of God, and under the law, is a profoundly Conservative position. It is not a measure of the man, but a measure of the system. The phrase is meant to portray blind justice under the law, and the casting down of artificial obstacles, allowing a man to reach for his own potential with no intrusion or imposition by others.
----------------------------
@ Roamer, fair enough as all are entitled, yet Plato speaks for me.
In his Republic, he defined the Soul (Psyche) of Man as that unique
attribute that differentiates each/every one of us for all eternity
and is the reservoir of of Man's creative impulse.
The Art of the world is mute testament to that reality.
-
----------------------------
@ Roamer, fair enough as all are entitled, yet Plato speaks for me.
In his Republic, he defined the Soul (Psyche) of Man as that unique
attribute that differentiates each/every one of us for all eternity
and is the reservoir of of Man's creative impulse.
The Art of the world is mute testament to that reality.
Right. No one is disputing the individual uniqueness of every soul. That is not in question, nor is it the point. The veritable point of 'all men are created equal' is not egalitarian, as it does nothing to assure equality of outcome, but merely the equality of opportunity and fair treatment under the law.
These are both tremendously important virtues, if they can be called virtues in an abstract such as government, and are the primacy upon which our nation is founded. (see DoI, 'created equal' is first in precedence, and is that endowment which hinges all rights...).
-
Right. No one is disputing the individual uniqueness of every soul. That is not in question, nor is it the point. The veritable point of 'all men are created equal' is not egalitarian, as it does nothing to assure equality of outcome, but merely the equality of opportunity and fair treatment under the law.
These are both tremendously important virtues, if they can be called virtues in an abstract such as government, and are the primacy upon which our nation is founded. (see DoI, 'created equal' is first in precedence, and is that endowment which hinges all rights...).
-----------------------
Fair enough and well differentiated!
-
That's right... Conservatism and Conservatives have NOTHING to do with what's going on.
Of course they don't as there are very few left.
-
Of course they don't as there are very few left.
I don't think that's true.
-
I don't think that's true.
Prove me wrong.
-
Excuse me but this country was founded BY doers ... smart, courageous doers and not whiners.
Aside from the fact that those who opposed their little uprising often enough denounced them as whiners, those who founded this country were also thinkers.
You could say the Original Dads weren't as smart as some of the people crawling around today's assorted Internet forums---they had to think before they acted, spoke or wrote. (Or does anyone think the War of Independence was just a spur-of-the-moment temper tantrum?)
I recommend very heartily this two-volume set (the total actual texts occupy 1,378 pages):
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51D8H4ugMmL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/417NQNam81L._SX336_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
I realise that thinking is considered politically incorrect in today's political world where the schoolyard brawl (if not the back-alley mugging) has replaced deliberation and debate left and right alike; and, that the major party candidates for the presidency today think (as have too many of their predecessors) that the Constitution is some leaky old wooden boat moored at or just outside Boston Harbour.
But I remind myself (as I did in 2016, when the major party choice was between an arsonist with a blow torch and an arsonist who liked to play with matches) of the wisdom of Peter Viereck: Any attempt to scrape the barnacles off an excellent if aging ship is never considered to be an attack on the ship itself. Except by the barnacles.
I still believe in freedom, what's left of it.
I still believe in individual rights and responsibilities. (And in that order.)
I still believe in a properly-construed government, whose sole legitimate business---other than protecting us from and defending us against enemies actual and provably iminent from abroad and predators (real predators, not mere vice-mongers or sociopolitical opponents) at home---is to stay the hell out of your business, my business, everyone's business, until or unless one would obstruct or abrogate another's equivalent rights.
I still disbelieve in the improperly-consecrated State that pokes its nose into any and just about every nook, cranny, and crevice of everyone's business, whether or not it is either competent or constitutionally sanctioned to do so.
And, aside from what Gene Healy has called "the cult of the presidency" (it didn't begin with the incumbent, and the evidence as it is suggests it won't end with him, either) continuing to flourish, it should cause profound indigestion that what Sen. Sam Ervin once feared (As long as I have a mind to think, a tongue to speak, and a heart to love my country, I shall deny that the Constitution confers any autocratic power on the President, or authorizes him to convert George Washington's America into Gaius Caesar's Rome (https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0064640027/watergateplayers)) threatens to come to pass, and that today's political (lack of) class seems to think in all seriousness that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were just fake news.
-
Aside from the fact that those who opposed their little uprising often enough denounced them as whiners, those who founded this country were also thinkers.
You could say the Original Dads weren't as smart as some of the people crawling around today's assorted Internet forums---they had to think before they acted, spoke or wrote. (Or does anyone think the War of Independence was just a spur-of-the-moment temper tantrum?)
I recommend very heartily this two-volume set:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51D8H4ugMmL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/417NQNam81L._SX336_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
I realise that thinking is considered politically incorrect in today's political world where the schoolyard brawl (if not the back-alley mugging) has replaced deliberation and debate left and right alike; and, that the major party candidates for the presidency today think (as have too many of their predecessors) that the Constitution is some leaky old wooden boat moored at or just outside Boston Harbour.
But I remind myself (as I did in 2016, when the major party choice was between an arsonist with a blow torch and an arsonist who liked to play with matches) of the wisdom of Peter Viereck: Any attempt to scrape the barnacles off an excellent if aging ship is never considered to be an attack on the ship itself. Except by the barnacles.
I still believe in freedom, what's left of it.
I still believe in individual rights and responsibilities. (And in that order.)
I still believe in a properly-construed government, whose sole legitimate business---other than protecting us from and defending us against enemies actual and provably iminent from abroad and predators (real predators, not mere vice-mongers or sociopolitical opponents) at home---is to stay the hell out of your business, my business, everyone's business, until or unless one would obstruct or abrogate another's equivalent rights.
I still disbelieve in the improperly-consecrated State that pokes its nose into any and just about every nook, cranny, and crevice of everyone's business, whether or not it is either competent or constitutionally sanctioned to do so.
And, aside from what Gene Healy has called "the cult of the presidency" (it didn't begin with the incumbent, and the evidence as it is suggests it won't end with him, either) continuing to flourish, it should cause profound indigestion that what Sen. Sam Ervin once feared (George Washington's America [turning] into Gaius Caesar's Rome) threatens to come to pass, and that today's political (lack of) class seems to think in all seriousness that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were just fake news.
Not one word of argument on that from me @EasyAce
-
Prove me wrong.
How would you know one way or the other? YEARS ago, more Conservatives were outside the Republican party than in it... The split with the Republicans is a loooong time coming. Utter failure to back your peeps.
Conservatives always rack up more than 60% in surveys, and can hit in the 70s.
Why do you suppose you aren't getting their votes?
Maybe we need another Limbaugh 'See, I Told You So' moment.
-
I don't think that's true.
It depends upon how narrowly one defines the word "conservative."
-
It depends upon how narrowly one defines the word "conservative."
Have we reached the point of, "Us four and no more and I'm not sure about those other three," yet?
-
Have we reached the point of, "Us four and no more and I'm not sure about those other three," yet?
Don McClean:
"A long, long time ago, I can still remember..."
-
How would you know one way or the other? YEARS ago, more Conservatives were outside the Republican party than in it... The split with the Republicans is a loooong time coming. Utter failure to back your peeps.
Conservatives always rack up more than 60% in surveys, and can hit in the 70s.
Why do you suppose you aren't getting their votes?
Maybe we need another Limbaugh 'See, I Told You So' moment.
I've never given a damn about the pretentious "principled conservatives" blah blah blah, but the last 2-3 months have shown me without a shadow of a doubt the huge differences between the 2 parties. I'm all in in November for the GOP.
-
It depends upon how narrowly one defines the word "conservative."
Actually, Conservatism is very wide. Very diverse. Factional conservatives are conservative too. As a political movement however, the promise is to support each other. If you are a DEFCON conservative - and ONLY concerned with the military application - the rest does not matter to you... If that is who you are, it is no skin off your nose to support the candidate that is a full conservative, because AS a full Conservative, he WILL uphold your principles too. And so it goes.
What I am getting here is division. Y'all want it to be OK to throw principles under the bus - To IGNORE, say, fiscal conservatives and their demands, wanting THEM to take a hit for YOUR team.
That's bullcrap. And FICONS are likely the second largest conservative base. Businessmen, bankers, most every small business... Most anyone who is flying right and knows how to balance a checkbook.
Throw THEM under the bus? No wonder y'all can hardly drag your candidate across the line. You are breaking the coalition and acting JUST like moderates. And that's a damn shame.
-
I've never given a damn about the pretentious "principled conservatives" blah blah blah, but the last 2-3 months have shown me without a shadow of a doubt the huge differences between the 2 parties. I'm all in in November for the GOP.
Knock yourself out. From 1980 forward tells me otherwise, without a single damn win in all that time. Like I said, knock yourself out. But you're being played.
-
Actually, Conservatism is very wide. Very diverse. Factional conservatives are conservative too. As a political movement however, the promise is to support each other. If you are a DEFCON conservative - and ONLY concerned with the military application - the rest does not matter to you... If that is who you are, it is no skin off your nose to support the candidate that is a full conservative, because AS a full Conservative, he WILL uphold your principles too. And so it goes.
What I am getting here is division. Y'all want it to be OK to throw principles under the bus - To IGNORE, say, fiscal conservatives and their demands, wanting THEM to take a hit for YOUR team.
That's bullcrap. And FICONS are likely the second largest conservative base. Businessmen, bankers, most every small business... Most anyone who is flying right and knows how to balance a checkbook.
Throw THEM under the bus? No wonder y'all can hardly drag your candidate across the line. You are breaking the coalition and acting JUST like moderates. And that's a damn shame.
Bottom-line, rule of thumb: If you ever decide somebody "ain't conservative," you are declaring it a limited Party that won't win any offices, and will have no power to effect change.
-
Actually, Conservatism is very wide. Very diverse. Factional conservatives are conservative too. As a political movement however, the promise is to support each other. If you are a DEFCON conservative - and ONLY concerned with the military application - the rest does not matter to you... If that is who you are, it is no skin off your nose to support the candidate that is a full conservative, because AS a full Conservative, he WILL uphold your principles too. And so it goes.
What I am getting here is division. Y'all want it to be OK to throw principles under the bus - To IGNORE, say, fiscal conservatives and their demands, wanting THEM to take a hit for YOUR team.
That's bullcrap. And FICONS are likely the second largest conservative base. Businessmen, bankers, most every small business... Most anyone who is flying right and knows how to balance a checkbook.
Throw THEM under the bus? No wonder y'all can hardly drag your candidate across the line. You are breaking the coalition and acting JUST like moderates. And that's a damn shame.
So you are telling us that if we are fiscal conservatives and refuse to vote for anyone that won't balance the checkbook, BUT fully support abortion, then we are good?
-
Bottom-line, rule of thumb: If you ever decide somebody "ain't conservative," you are declaring it a limited Party that won't win any offices, and will have no power to effect change.
I think that's false. Waters it down so much that it loses all definition.
No, there are definitions that delineate what Conservatism is... Or it is nothing other than mere Republican-ism, and reduced to a glee club.
-
So you are telling us that if we are fiscal conservatives and refuse to vote for anyone that won't balance the checkbook, BUT fully support abortion, then we are good?
No.
I am saying if you are a fiscal conservative and care about those principles you should also support the other conservative factions by picking a fiscal conservative that also embraces the principles of the other factions too. I do not support a fiscal conservative that does not also embrace pro-life principles... And the other way around.
-
I think that's false. Waters it down so much that it loses all definition.
No, there are definitions that delineate what Conservatism is... Or it is nothing other than mere Republican-ism, and reduced to a glee club.
By your definition you've doomed yourself to a small group that will never have any political influence. Never in the course of human history has there been a non-authoritarian government that wasn't some form of coalition between factions that didn't entirely agree on everything. The thirteen colonies got together only because of a willingness to compromise.
-
By your definition you've doomed yourself to a small group that will never have any political influence. Never in the course of human history has there been a non-authoritarian government that wasn't some form of coalition between factions that didn't entirely agree on everything. The thirteen colonies got together only because of a willingness to compromise.
...in the face of numerous enemies waiting to take their measure of the new Nation. I'm sure Monroe's Doctrine was considered extremely bellicose in its day, but it was the right move.
-
By your definition you've doomed yourself to a small group that will never have any political influence. Never in the course of human history has there been a non-authoritarian government that wasn't some form of coalition between factions that didn't entirely agree on everything. The thirteen colonies got together only because of a willingness to compromise.
That's funny, because every time true Conservatism has been preached in my life DIRECTLY correlates to the rise of the Conservative juggernaut. Every time. The rest of the time has been loss, or bare contested wins.
It is the moderates that have been preaching the big tent philosophy, and it is the moderates that have had to eke out contested wins.
-
@ Roamer,
you can assert and argue w/these types till you turn blue, yet nothing will come of it as they're
stuck of stupid.
As Kirk pointed out: CONSERVATISM HAS NOTHING TO DO W/POLITICS. N-O-T-H-I-N-G!!!!!
Yet this is all they know (and want to know).
Ideas are far to burdensome for them as that requires reflection and reasoning, which are
incompatible w/table pounding, noise and insults.
It's a dead end.
-
I've never given a damn about the pretentious "principled conservatives" blah blah blah, but the last 2-3 months have shown me without a shadow of a doubt the huge differences between the 2 parties. I'm all in in November for the GOP.
888high58888
-
No, it may not be you that has changed stance... but that's only because you are a stubborn old coot who probably never has "changed" your stance...
despite the harshness of reality smacking you upside the head....lololol.
Now...if I ..said that! :silly: :silly: :silly:
-
That's funny, because every time true Conservatism has been preached in my life DIRECTLY correlates to the rise of the Conservative juggernaut. Every time. The rest of the time has been loss, or bare contested wins.
It is the moderates that have been preaching the big tent philosophy, and it is the moderates that have had to eke out contested wins.
Correlation is not necessarily causal. Demographics are shifting, there hasn’t been a landslide national election for nearly 40 years - Reagan’s. Since they’ve all been close. You may not have noticed but public education is cranking out legions of cookie cutter marxists and a message of ‘rugged individualism’ falls on the deaf ears of third world immigrants.
And if we choose to not participate because no candidate is ‘pure’ enough we’ll soon pass the point of equilibrium and the landslides will be going in the other direction.
-
If Barack Obama had the same adversarial media coverage Pres. Trump 'enjoys', he have had the IRS up every editor and publisher/producer by now.
Then I thought about it.
President Trump, even in a 2nd term, wouldn't waste his time siccing the IRS on the media.
And Hillary? She's just have them murdered and disposed of.
:laugh:
-
I'd imagine the "Principled Conservatives", sitting around in their tighty whities in the basement, shitposting on random internet forums about how "principled" they are, imagine they're really making a significant dent in the world.
-
I'd imagine the "Principled Conservatives", sitting around in their tighty whities in the basement, shitposting on random internet forums about how "principled" they are, imagine they're really making a significant dent in the world.
How many of us know or knew somebody who "...has all the answers and knows all the solutions" but whose private life was a mess?
This is the same thing only on a grander scale. LOL!
-
Correlation is not necessarily causal. Demographics are shifting, there hasn’t been a landslide national election for nearly 40 years - Reagan’s. Since they’ve all been close. You may not have noticed but public education is cranking out legions of cookie cutter marxists and a message of ‘rugged individualism’ falls on the deaf ears of third world immigrants.
And if we choose to not participate because no candidate is ‘pure’ enough we’ll soon pass the point of equilibrium and the landslides will be going in the other direction.
@skeeter ... Thank you! Your posts are always excellent sir.
-
Correlation is not necessarily causal. Demographics are shifting, there hasn’t been a landslide national election for nearly 40 years - Reagan’s. Since they’ve all been close. You may not have noticed but public education is cranking out legions of cookie cutter marxists and a message of ‘rugged individualism’ falls on the deaf ears of third world immigrants.
And if we choose to not participate because no candidate is ‘pure’ enough we’ll soon pass the point of equilibrium and the landslides will be going in the other direction.
I think POTUS TRUMP is just as 'perfect', as the rest of us. I find it odd, that people, start with ' He is not perfect', .....
He is a human being like the rest of us. I bet he is more wholesome than some on here. Most old time politicians, cheated on their wives, all the time, yet they stayed married. Look at Clintons. Most disgusting people, yet they stay married. Both gay and pedo's. My old post below. Trump does not smoke, drink alcohol, no illegal drugs, no coffee
-------------------------
ALL KENNEDYS were horn dogs. LBJ. CLINTON! Clinton has child with black prostitute. DANNY WILLIAMS. Hillary found in hotel room with female black prostitute! Not to mention their k!ll list. Same with Kenyan obama. Married to trannie, kids belong to Dr. Anita Blanchard & Martin Nesbitt. He was a male wh0re for rich white men to get his cociane. He smokes pot, drinks, so much he had BREWERY PUT IN WH.
Trump does not smoke, drink alcohol, no illegal drugs, no coffee! He is more wholesome than you are! WWW.MAGAPILL.COM (http://WWW.MAGAPILL.COM)
-
That's funny, because every time true Conservatism has been preached in my life DIRECTLY correlates to the rise of the Conservative juggernaut. Every time. The rest of the time has been loss, or bare contested wins.
When and where was this?
-
When I was first married at age 19, when we went to his parents home for a dinner, or occasion, the MEN ate in the living room and the women ate in the kitchen. They didn't mingle, or eat with each other as husband & wife. I found that odd. Then it was discovered that some women were actually smart, and could think! The men, sat in the front of the car and the little woman in the back. That is how I 'see' these principled conservatives. Like Xena said, an old coot. They can't come forward into the modern world.
-
Correlation is not necessarily causal. Demographics are shifting, there hasn’t been a landslide national election for nearly 40 years - Reagan’s.
And Reagan never ran as a "Conservative". He was a full-throated American populist.
(https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--F1RoBueb--/b_rgb:908d91,t_Heather%20Preview/t_watermark_lock/c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1546630459/production/designs/3887982_0.jpg) (https://www.virginiahistory.org/sites/default/files/uploads/VHE_Campaigns_IL.2012.2.45.4.jpg)
-
@skeeter ... Thank you! Your posts are always excellent sir.
As are your’s.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
-
Correlation is not necessarily causal. Demographics are shifting, there hasn’t been a landslide national election for nearly 40 years - Reagan’s. Since they’ve all been close.
Well KINDA... But no. The Contract with America - Conservative and MASSIVE. TEA Party - Conservative and MASSIVE. Nation-wide turnover at every level.
The truth rings like a bell. And folks WILL come.
You may not have noticed but public education is cranking out legions of cookie cutter marxists and a message of ‘rugged individualism’ falls on the deaf ears of third world immigrants.
Doesn't really work. Sooner or later all them shiny new liberals come up against life, which promptly adjusts their thinking with a 2x4 upside their head. Instant Conservative. The old adage is still the same: If you are not a liberal in your youth, you have no heart... If you are not a Conservative by old age, you have no brain.
And if we choose to not participate because no candidate is ‘pure’ enough we’ll soon pass the point of equilibrium and the landslides will be going in the other direction.
Makes no difference then... because without the principles found in conservatism, ALL of them, nothing will change, and all is lost already. Not that I believe all is lost, but rather, there is only one way forward, and the longer y'all allow a non-opposition Republican party to exist, the harder it will be to return to what works - Which IS Conservatism, as proven over millennia.
All y'all are doing is wasting precious time.
-
And Reagan never ran as a "Conservative". He was a full-throated American populist.
That simply is not true.
-
When and where was this?
Reagan, 94 Congress, TEA Party.
-
When I was first married at age 19, when we went to his parents home for a dinner, or occasion, the MEN ate in the living room and the women ate in the kitchen. They didn't mingle, or eat with each other as husband & wife. I found that odd. Then it was discovered that some women were actually smart, and could think! The men, sat in the front of the car and the little woman in the back. That is how I 'see' these principled conservatives. Like Xena said, an old coot. They can't come forward into the modern world.
Principle things ARE principle things. Always TRUE. Modernity changes nothing
-
That simply is not true.
Of course it is. He ran as a "God, Country, Family" America Firster.
Seriously, name one domestic accomplishment that was conservative. Hell, Reagan even told us not to worry about the debt he was creating.
I think after three decades we can at least begin to separate fact from fiction, legend from reality. Don't you?
(https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--F1RoBueb--/b_rgb:908d91,t_Heather%20Preview/t_watermark_lock/c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1546630459/production/designs/3887982_0.jpg) (https://www.virginiahistory.org/sites/default/files/uploads/VHE_Campaigns_IL.2012.2.45.4.jpg)
-
Reagan, 94 Congress, TEA Party.
You've GOT to remove Reagan from this list. It's the one that hurts us the most because it's seeped in fiction.
The '94 Congress was a thing a beauty. And yet, never duplicated. What did you princiiples do wrong?
-
Of course it is. He ran as a "God, Country, Family" America Firster.
Seriously, name one domestic accomplishment that was conservative.
He revived Goldwater and gave social conservatives a seat at the Conservative table, bringing Pro-Life and the Judeo-Christian Ethic into defined American Conservatism. If for no other thing, that makes him the Father of the modern Conservative movement and that without stepping on Goldwater. No hyphenation, and straight out of the Goldwater wing, like every Conservative.
And had he not, he would not have won.
Hell, he even told us not to worry about the debt he was creating.
Disrespect him all you like, you will not knock hm down.
I think after three decades we can at least begin to separate fact from fiction, legend from reality. Don't you?
It is obvious to me that you are incapable thereof... having proven to be tone deaf wrt Conservatism as long as I have known you. :shrug:
-
You've GOT to remove Reagan from this list. It's the one that hurts us the most because it's seeped in fiction.
No.
The '94 Congress was a thing a beauty. And yet, never duplicated. What did you princiiples do wrong?
Corruption even as the TEA Party... Largely by the machinations of the Moderate wing. Still the only net gains AT ALL for the Right of any mention.
-
@ Roamer,
you can assert and argue w/these types till you turn blue, yet nothing will come of it as they're
stuck of stupid.
As Kirk pointed out: CONSERVATISM HAS NOTHING TO DO W/POLITICS. N-O-T-H-I-N-G!!!!!
Yet this is all they know (and want to know).
Ideas are far to burdensome for them as that requires reflection and reasoning, which are
incompatible w/table pounding, noise and insults.
It's a dead end.
Yet if one does not rise to defend, then one allows the Republicans to devolve into the same soulless masturbatory glee club as the Democrats. Without reason and consequence, the end is self evident,
If for no other reason, then to stand in the breach and preach repentance. And when that does not work, I can shake the dirt off my shoes with confidence. :beer: Even as my friend @INVAR before me.
-
He revived Goldwater and gave social conservatives a seat at the Conservative table, bringing Pro-Life and the Judeo-Christian Ethic into defined American Conservatism. If for no other thing, that makes him the Father of the modern Conservative movement and that without stepping on Goldwater. No hyphenation, and straight out of the Goldwater wing, like every Conservative.
And had he not, he would not have won.
I know how candidate Reagan used the Christian Right ..... my question is what did he accomplish for them? What was Ronald Reagan's legislative legacy for the Christian Right that helped elect him?
Disrespect him all you like, you will not knock hm down.
This is one of the interesting differences between you and me. I don't think it disrespects Ronald Reagan to say he was the American populist needed to return America to sense of world confidence and restore belief in the America Dream. Reagan was also VERY pro-American worker ... even slapping tariffs to level playing fields and creating debt to help them dig out from the Carter years.
Reagan loved this country but after he defeated the Soviet Union (a stellar legacy) and tax cuts the man pretty much coasted ... especially in his second term.
But I give him overall high marks as President for how he helped repair the American psyche when repair was so needed.
What I am questioning, though, is the pedestal others -- not he --- built out of whole cloth and sand for Reagan to stand on into perpetuity. I think Reagan would be quite disappointed with how he's been used by a small group of "principled" who have yet to see him as he really was. And if I had to guess I'd say Reagan would be especially disappointed when these devotees use him as a sword against the current President; especially since the current President, out of the two of them, is actually trying to and often does govern as a conservative.
But I'm sensing this is a very sensitive subject for you. So, I'll say no more and just wish you good night.
-
When I was first married at age 19, when we went to his parents home for a dinner, or occasion, the MEN ate in the living room and the women ate in the kitchen. They didn't mingle, or eat with each other as husband & wife. I found that odd. Then it was discovered that some women were actually smart, and could think! The men, sat in the front of the car and the little woman in the back. That is how I 'see' these principled conservatives. Like Xena said, an old coot. They can't come forward into the modern world.
-------------------------------
Obviously you have zero awareness of the embarrassing ignorance of your posts.
If you ever pass by a library (it's the stone building w/the books inside) suggest
you look up Plato, William of Ockham and Edmund Burke, whose writings might
acquaint you w/the meaning of Principled Conservatism.
-
:im waiting:
-
-------------------------------
Obviously you have zero awareness of the embarrassing ignorance of your posts.
If you ever pass by a library (it's the stone building w/the books inside) suggest
you look up Plato, William of Ockham and Edmund Burke, whose writings might
acquaint you w/the meaning of Principled Conservatism.
You persuasive smooth talker you.
-
And Reagan never ran as a "Conservative". He was a full-throated American populist.
Pure bullsh*t.
Once again RIV is showing she knows absolute nothing about Conservatism or Reagan.
-
I know how candidate Reagan used the Christian Right ..... my question is what did he accomplish for them? What was Ronald Reagan's legislative legacy for the Christian Right that helped elect him?
Don't remember, doesn't matter. The primary point being that he legitimated the Christian Right, and their cause, and welcomed them to the Conservative table, and therefore into political existence.
This is one of the interesting differences between you and me. I don't think it disrespects Ronald Reagan to say he was the American populist needed to return America to sense of world confidence and restore belief in the America Dream. Reagan was also VERY pro-American worker ... even slapping tariffs to level playing fields and creating debt to help them dig out from the Carter years.
Reagan loved this country but after he defeated the Soviet Union (a stellar legacy) and tax cuts the man pretty much coasted ... especially in his second term.
But I give him overall high marks as President for how he helped repair the American psyche when repair was so needed.
Yeah whatever. Incidental. That he springs from the Goldwater wing, That he brought unity to the Conservative factions thereof, and that he gave the Christian Right a seat at the Conservative table... That's his accomplishment. That is why he is revered.
What I am questioning, though, is the pedestal others -- not he --- built out of whole cloth and sand
for Reagan to stand on into perpetuity. I think Reagan would be quite disappointed with how he's been used by a small group of "principled" who have yet to see him as he really was.
Your understanding of Conservatism is sorely lacking... As is underscored by this statement.
And if I had to guess I'd say Reagan would be especially disappointed when these devotees use him as a sword against the current President; especially since the current President, out of the two of them, is actually trying to and often does govern as a conservative.
If he was indeed governing as a Conservative, I would be FOR him. I am not. Should tell you plenty. You keep insisting he is Conservative, when he is not. Perhaps more understanding as to what Conservatism actually is might be helpful.
His alignment is with NYC liberal Democrats and the left wing of the Republican party... He is in up to his lips with Turtle and the globalist moderates. Any feigning of Conservatism is highly suspect right from the get go. And rightly so, as it turns out.
But I'm sensing this is a very sensitive subject for you. So, I'll say no more and just wish you good night.
Missed this till now... Sorry... Consider the best wishes returned.
-
Pure bullsh*t.
Once again RIV is showing she knows absolute nothing about Conservatism or Reagan.
Easy there...
Compared to anyone else on the political scene, Ronald Reagan was the 'Moses' of Conservatism.
But we all know he was quite happy with getting 75% of what the GOP was after.
Ergo, he went back on his Conservative Principles many times to reach that 75%.
...which is a foreign concept to a few among us here.
-
Easy there...
Compared to anyone else on the political scene, Ronald Reagan was the 'Moses' of Conservatism.
But we all know he was quite happy with getting 75% of what the GOP was after.
Ergo, he went back on his Conservative Principles many times to reach that 75%.
...which is a foreign concept to a few among us here.
You’re so cute when you’re wrong.
Bless your heart.
-
You’re so cute when you’re wrong.
Bless your heart.
From Reagan's 1990 autobiography
“If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives (in CA) who never got used to it.â€
Doh! Looks like Reagan agreed with @DCPatriot
-
From Reagan's 1990 autobiography
“If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives (in CA) who never got used to it.â€
Doh! Looks like Reagan agreed with @DCPatriot
If there was anywhere near 75% performance *FOR* Conservatism, you would not be getting guff from me.
-
From Reagan's 1990 autobiography
“If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives (in CA) who never got used to it.â€
Doh! Looks like Reagan agreed with @DCPatriot
Actually not really. But thanks for playing.
-
:im waiting:
-
If there was anywhere near 75% performance *FOR* Conservatism, you would not be getting guff from me.
Of course not.
But any fair appraisal of Trumps performance so far could easily conclude otherwise.
-
Of course not.
But any fair appraisal of Trumps performance so far could easily conclude otherwise.
Not by a very long shot.