The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Mesaclone on October 13, 2017, 06:22:22 pm
-
First of all, setting aside unwise campaign rhetoric, we need all conservatives back in this struggle. That includes NTrs and everyone else of good conscience.
Would President Hillary Clinton have;
1. Put Justice Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
2. Ended DACA and the used it as a bargaining chip for better Border enforcement and a wall.
3. Exited the Paris Agreement.
4. Brought down NAFTA and reset for a new negotiation across the board.it.
5. Ended Obamacare insurance subsidies of over 7 billion dollars.
6. Deeply cut government regulation.
7. Nominated large numbers of Conservative justices to the Federal courts.
8. Decertified the Iran deal.
9. Stood up to NFL players disrespecting the anthem, flag and our national identity.
10. Proposed deep cuts in Corporate tax rates across the board.
11. Proposed deep cuts in taxes for the middle class.
12. Waged war against grotesque liberal media bias.
13. Imposed immigration limits on terror risk nations and fought for them in the courts.
14. Set the Justice Department and the admin to oppose "Sanctuary" cities.
15. Allowed private companies/insurers to NOT provide abortion coverage against their own moral views.
16. Opposed hysterical calls for strong new gun control legislation following the Vegas shooting.
17. Advocated for increased defense spending and revitalization in particular of our decaying naval forces.
18. Supported police and law enforcement at every turn against groups like ANTIFA and BLM.
19. Called consistently for protection of the unborn, and supporting a strict post 20 week ban on abortions.
20. Fought for new legislation, even if congress failed in its part, to repeal Obamacare.
This is just a partial list, but it should make clear to those who like to claim the President is a liberal just like Clinton and/or the Dems in general...and that it matters not between he and Hillary who won the White House. Well, guess what? It matters...and it matters in a YUGE way. Those of us who have supported Trump see all of his flaws, no less than those who consider themselves NT's, but we also see the vast and Conservatively positive differences between himself and Clinton. And while his conservatism may not be as pure as some like, nor his history as devoid of moderate to left associations whilst he was a businessman, this list demonstrates just how strongly he is and has been fighting for conservatism.
I post this for one reason, and one reason only...that those of you who are conservatives but not supporters of the President....and yes, I and nearly all Trump supporters respect your position...will now come around and join with us in what is quickly becoming an existential cultural and ideological struggle for the future of this nation. You are needed, just as we pro Trump folks will be needed down the road when a President Pence or President Cruz are fighting the radical Left. No one asks that anyone set aside their views or halt all critiques of policies and behaviors you disagree with...just that you let the bigger picture of what we face from the Left persuade you get back into the fight FOR an imperfect Republican President.
-
*YAWN*
Principles.
-
*YAWN*
Principles.
Yes. We all have principles, or are you childishly implying that those who oppose the President have stronger principles than those who support him?
More importantly, the 20 points laid out remain...all relevant to conservative "principles" and all critical to our future as a nation. You wisely avoided addressing these, as they powerfully refute any argument about principles being the basis on which one would oppose the President and his policies.
-
Yes. We all have principles, or are you childishly implying that those who oppose the President have stronger principles than those who support him?
Yes, that must be unequivocally true... wrt Conservatism anyway. If liberal principles are your bag... or shifting principles (which really aren't principles at all, now, right?)...
More importantly, the 20 points laid out remain...all relevant to conservative "principles" and all critical to our future as a nation. You wisely avoided addressing these, as they powerfully refute any argument about principles being the basis on which one would oppose the President and his policies.
LOL!
More blowing sunshine up people's skirts.
DACA isn't gone.
Neither is the Paris Agreement.
Neither is NAFTA.
Shall I go on?
-
Can this thread reach 500 posts, with NTers "virtue signaling" their same olde tired BS ??
-
Yes, that must be unequivocally true... wrt Conservatism anyway. If liberal principles are your bag... or shifting principles (which really aren't principles at all, now, right?)...
LOL!
More blowing sunshine up people's skirts.
DACA isn't gone.
Neither is the Paris Agreement.
Neither is NAFTA.
Shall I go on?
My principles are constant, as are those of nearly every Trump supporter I've met. No doubt, there are some in any political camp who blow with the wind, but this is as true of NT's as of Trump voters.
You can go on as you wish, but your 3 given statements ignore that a) DACA is functionally ended, and exists now only as a bargaining chip...which put simply...is plain wise strategy on the President's part. b) as to NAFTA and Paris, it is Trump who is suspending and forcing new terms to fit a conservative agenda...whether or not they technically exist does not override the import of his actions on both. Technically, he is renegotiating NAFTA to gain the terms he wants to protect US jobs...and he is clear that if he doesn't get that he will complete our withdrawal. These things are not complete over night, but in real political terms our withdrawal from both of these accords is effectively complete...though a new and radically different version of each may yet become part of a new agreement.
Next, let's hear from you how Gorsuch may end up converting to extreme liberalism in a few years and thus his appointment by President Trump is insignificant to conservative goals. As your previous refutations above were in similar vein, I'd expect no less than your recitation of how these obvious conservative actions are just ephemeral and/or actually liberalism disguised as conservative acts. I would look forward to you engaging in a serious discussion of these issues, but it would be more interesting if you could refrain from disingenuous understatement of these rather clear conservative accomplishments.
Trump Ends DACA Program
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-dreamers-daca-immigration-announcement-n798686
Trump Still Taking US Out of Paris Agreement
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/19/trump-is-not-reversing-on-paris-agreement-heres-why.html
And as a balance...please state where you think we'd be heading under Hillary as regards NAFTA and Paris...or where DACA would be at this point. Why do you ignore where the President's opponent would have taken us...as a key part of this discussion is just how radically different a Hillary presidency would have been from President Trump's Republican presidency.
-
My principles are constant, as are those of nearly every Trump supporter I've met.
Yeah... well.. We've had this conversation before.
To put it kindly, we'll just agree to disagree on that.
-
Yeah... well.. We've had this conversation before.
To put it kindly, we'll just agree to disagree on that.
If you believe yourself more principled than the fellow Republicans with which you disagree, you are blinded by one of two things...or perhaps both acting in concert. Arrogance or Ignorance. To put it kindly, as you say.
But lets put aside the personal tit for tat...if we each see the other as unprincipled, that's not really something we can resolve on an internet discussion board.
I'd rather, as pertains to the 20 issues listed, hear your arguments as to how Hillary's policy goals would not have differed from the President's...which has to be the contention of those who proclaim they won't support either because "there's no difference" between them.
-
*YAWN*
Principles.
You should be ashamed. Have you nothing to say? Apparently not, so why post?
-
My principles are constant, as are those of nearly every Trump supporter I've met. No doubt, there are some in any political camp who blow with the wind, but this is as true of NT's as of Trump voters.
You can go on as you wish, but your 3 given statements ignore that a) DACA is functionally ended, and exists now only as a bargaining chip...which put simply...is plain wise strategy on the President's part. b) as to NAFTA and Paris, it is Trump who is suspending and forcing new terms to fit a conservative agenda...whether or not they technically exist does not override the import of his actions on both. Technically, he is renegotiating NAFTA to gain the terms he wants to protect US jobs...and he is clear that if he doesn't get that he will complete our withdrawal. These things are not complete over night, but in real political terms our withdrawal from both of these accords is effectively complete...though a new and radically different version of each may yet become part of a new agreement.
Next, let's hear from you how Gorsuch may end up converting to extreme liberalism in a few years and thus his appointment by President Trump is insignificant to conservative goals. As your previous refutations above were in similar vein, I'd expect no less than your recitation of how these obvious conservative actions are just ephemeral and/or actually liberalism disguised as conservative acts. I would look forward to you engaging in a serious discussion of these issues, but it would be more interesting if you could refrain from disingenuous understatement of these rather clear conservative accomplishments.
Trump Ends DACA Program
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-dreamers-daca-immigration-announcement-n798686
Trump Still Taking US Out of Paris Agreement
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/19/trump-is-not-reversing-on-paris-agreement-heres-why.html
And as a balance...please state where you think we'd be heading under Hillary as regards NAFTA and Paris...or where DACA would be at this point. Why do you ignore where the President's opponent would have taken us...as a key part of this discussion is just how radically different a Hillary presidency would have been from President Trump's Republican presidency.
Thanks for posting that list. It is impressive. I would strongly suggest not engaging with Roamer as he is not one to see reason. I've tried to talk to him too many times.
I always win but I never get through to him.
-
You should be ashamed. Have you nothing to say? Apparently not, so why post?
(https://onemindmanydetours.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/nagging-mom.jpg)
-
Emjay, I will endeavor to follow your advice.
Its hard to have serious discussions with anyone who thinks they have principles and those with whom they disagree do not. Only someone with very little life experience could take such a ridiculous position...or...they are simply using the principle argument to cover the complete lack of an intellectual argument for their position. Its a very "liberal" approach to political discourse that attempts to shut down discussion by claiming moral superiority. And you are right, its best left to fester in its own swamp of self aggrandizement.
-
You should be ashamed. Have you nothing to say? Apparently not, so why post?
I think that answer is covered under the word “signaling.”
-
Emjay, I will endeavor to follow your advice.
Its hard to have serious discussions with anyone who thinks they have principles and those with whom they disagree do not. Only someone with very little life experience could take such a ridiculous position...or...they are simply using the principle argument to cover the complete lack of an intellectual argument for their position. Its a very "liberal" approach to political discourse that attempts to shut down discussion by claiming moral superiority. And you are right, its best left to fester in its own swamp of self aggrandizement.
I like to frame it like this (when I’m challenged on “principles”):
I supported Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, George W Bush, and Donald Trump. Those were my best possible choices in the voting booth. So there’s nothing else I need to say.
I’m comfortable with my conservative bona fides and happy to reply to anyone who’s open and honest and doesn’t feel the need to attack my person because they don’t like my views. That’s a conversation nonstarter.
-
If you believe yourself more principled than the fellow Republicans with which you disagree, you are blinded by one of two things...or perhaps both acting in concert. Arrogance or Ignorance. To put it kindly, as you say.
Concatenating 'Republican' and 'Conservative' is your first mistake. And a dire one.
And I am not a Republican any longer.
But lets put aside the personal tit for tat...if we each see the other as unprincipled, that's not really something we can resolve on an internet discussion board.
Or in life - You and I have already been proven to be in entirely separate eco-systems, if not indeed, worlds apart.
I'd rather, as pertains to the 20 issues listed, hear your arguments as to how Hillary's policy goals would not have differed from the President's...which has to be the contention of those who proclaim they won't support either because "there's no difference" between them.
In the first place, your bullet points are unproven, and in fact, as already demonstrated, provably false. If something is a 'bargaining chip', it is still very necessarily 'on the table'.
Secondly: 'And Mussolini made the trains run on time' = Even IF you have twenty talking points that are actually TRUE (which you do not), that doesn't preclude damage in other ways... If he does institute 'single payer', or if he does start WWIII (Examples only), whatever else he might do around the edges will pale in comparison.
So as a matter of FACT, his being 'better than Hillary' is still very much to be determined, if it can be determined at all...
Not that I give two shits if/that he is, because setting such an incredibly low bar for success is simply insanity.
-
You should be ashamed. Have you nothing to say? Apparently not, so why post?
I have said it all already. OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
-
I have said it all already. OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
I would strongly suggest not engaging with Emjay as she is not one to see reason. I've tried to talk to her too many times. :laugh:
-
I would strongly suggest not engaging with Emjay as she is not one to see reason. I've tried to talk to her too many times. :laugh:
:P
-
Yes, @RoosGirl has tried to talk to me too many times. I wish she'd give it up and also give up talking behind my back.
-
Yes, @RoosGirl has tried to talk to me too many times. I wish she'd give it up and also give up talking behind my back.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/W8h9OMkh4p1vy/giphy.gif)
-
.
Aaaugh! I hate that pic... It's contagious.
Now I need a nap. ****slapping
-
Aaaugh! I hate that pic... It's contagious.
Now I need a nap. ****slapping
LOL I about went into a coma just finding it and getting it posted. But I fought through it because I knew how much it would add.
-
First of all, setting aside unwise campaign rhetoric, we need all conservatives back in this struggle. That includes NTrs and everyone else of good conscience.
Would President Hillary Clinton have;
(snip)
A good, positive list of accomplishments. Thanks for that.
-
A good, positive list of accomplishments. Thanks for that.
And it doesn’t even include what Trump unleashed yesterday and today! Purchasing insurance interstate and decertification of the Iran deal! Kool.
-
And it doesn’t even include what Trump unleashed yesterday and today! Purchasing insurance interstate and decertification of the Iran deal! Kool.
Yes indeed. I am very pleased with that, especially opening the door to interstate insurance purchases. That alone is worth the price of admission!
-
Yes indeed. I am very pleased with that, especially opening the door to interstate insurance purchases. That alone is worth the price of admission!
I'm not sure that very many get the full import of those actions either. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN MAKING ILLEGAL PAYMENTS TO INSURANCE COMPANIES EVEN IN THE FACE OF A COURT RULLING DECLARING THEM TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND NOT ONE SOUL DID A DAMNED THING ABOUT IT UNTIL NOW!
Sorry for yelling!
-
The best way to fight the far left is to cut the existing media's throat.
-
The best way to fight the far left is to cut the existing media's throat.
I never got the chance to agree with you about that.
-
I never got the chance to agree with you about that.
You agree with the goal, but we are still trying to hammer out the means.
I would love to hear any proposal that has a good chance of success, and even some that have a slim chance at success.
-
I never got the chance to agree with you about that.
You know, this problem is more extensive than just the media. I think one of the reasons Universities turn out so many left wing kook bats is because the Universities are not a market economy based system. They are heavily subsidized in their ridiculous tuition costs by student loans from the US government.
If they had to live on what they would get in a real market economy, they would perhaps be less amicable to socialist ideology.
Once again, government involvement distorts the natural social/economic conditions.
-
You agree with the goal, but we are still trying to hammer out the means.
I would love to hear any proposal that has a good chance of success, and even some that have a slim chance at success.
I wish I knew. I am not a political scientist, just an amateur observer. I just know what doesn't.
-
You know, this problem is more extensive than just the media. I think one of the reasons Universities turn out so many left wing kook bats is because the Universities are not a market economy based system. They are heavily subsidized in their ridiculous tuition costs by student loans from the US government.
If they had to live on what they would get in a real market economy, they would perhaps be less amicable to socialist ideology.
Once again, government involvement distorts the natural social/economic conditions.
I do agree with that. Universities, like government in general, are insulated from the consequences of their actions. Very anti-market.
-
RE mescaline's OP:
That's an impressive list, that nobody can deny.
I care little about the gossip about what's going on in the White House, and the appropriateness of Trump's tweets, but much for what the administration is doing.
And, so far, considering the opposition (not only from the democrat-communists but from the Pubbie establishment as well), it's doing pretty good!
-
I have absolutely no intention whatsoever to join the 'Principles-are-the-enemy-of-the-good-Trump-peoples' and help them fight the 'Left' whom insisted that lofting a lifelong Liberal NY Democrat to high office is going to save us from the Left.
You guys are on your own, no matter what the hell happens.
I have other plans that do not include you.
-
I have said it all already. OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
Tell me about it. Ad nauseum.
-
And it doesn’t even include what Trump unleashed yesterday and today! Purchasing insurance interstate and decertification of the Iran deal! Kool.
I know. That was a good thing to do and followed a suggestion by Rand Paul. I don't know what's going on with that boy. When Trump came in the room, he turned away and refused to acknowledge him. Really mature.
-
I never got the chance to agree with you about that.
[/quote
Mystery says the thread is unlocked now so you can do it. I'm calling it the Zombie Thread.
-
RE mescaline's OP:
That's an impressive list, that nobody can deny.
I care little about the gossip about what's going on in the White House, and the appropriateness of Trump's tweets, but much for what the administration is doing.
And, so far, considering the opposition (not only from the democrat-communists but from the Pubbie establishment as well), it's doing pretty good!
Yay, @Fishrrman ... that is exactly how I feel. That's why I get so het up when people obsess over Trump's tweets.
-
You know, this problem is more extensive than just the media. I think one of the reasons Universities turn out so many left wing kook bats is because the Universities are not a market economy based system. They are heavily subsidized in their ridiculous tuition costs by student loans from the US government.
If they had to live on what they would get in a real market economy, they would perhaps be less amicable to socialist ideology.
Once again, government involvement distorts the natural social/economic conditions.
Excellent point. It enrages me that colleges cost so much now. It's ridiculous. There are a few majors that might be worth a college education but, at the current costs, most of them are only useful as a way to get an interview.
-
I know. That was a good thing to do and followed a suggestion by Rand Paul. I don't know what's going on with that boy. When Trump came in the room, he turned away and refused to acknowledge him. Really mature.
I caught a few minutes of the PBS broadcast just now, and Trump was saying something like:
"The subsidies weren't going to the people. The subsidies were to make the insurance companies rich. That's not what I'm about."
I thought to myself that was a masterful thing to say, whether it is true or not. There are so many kook bat leftests that wish to believe it, that it will resonate among them, and mute criticism from that direction.
He's playing for the liberal pawns. He knows how to play this game. :)
-
Excellent point. It enrages me that colleges cost so much now. It's ridiculous. There are a few majors that might be worth a college education but, at the current costs, most of them are only useful as a way to get an interview.
To make it worse, knowledge wants to be free! Khan Academy can teach virtually anything without costing you anything. The only reason we demand ridiculously expensive college tuition is to subsidize this university system and the people in it, all for us to be rewarded with them undermining the country!
Texas has at least pushed the idea of a $10,000.00 degree program. This is the direction things should be going. There is no reason the costs of education should increase when the ability to transfer knowledge is getting easier and cheaper every year.
-
I have absolutely no intention whatsoever to join the 'Principles-are-the-enemy-of-the-good-Trump-peoples' and help them fight the 'Left' whom insisted that lofting a lifelong Liberal NY Democrat to high office is going to save us from the Left.
You guys are on your own, no matter what the hell happens.
I have other plans that do not include you.
Yes. We know...you have "plans". Arm up, bunker down, hope for apocalypse.
Good plan. Not paranoid and delusional whatsoever.
-
I never got the chance to agree with you about that.
Mystery says the thread is unlocked now so you can do it. I'm calling it the Zombie Thread.
I dunno. Zombie threads give me the creeps. Like clowns....
-
(http://donthatethegeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Clown.jpg)
-
Yes. We know...you have "plans". Arm up, bunker down, hope for apocalypse.
Good plan. Not paranoid and delusional whatsoever.
You forgot the part where we will be laughing at you in the day of your calamity.
Hell, I'm laughing my arse off at you people right now, flailing about and exclaiming hosannas to your king in the white house thinking that this stupid tactic of shaming Principled Conservatives to "join you" in fighting the Left is viable.
It's not viable. It's pathetic. You and your prince made us the enemy - so, piss off pal. Go and fight 'The Left'. Have fun.
-
You know, this problem is more extensive than just the media. I think one of the reasons Universities turn out so many left wing kook bats is because the Universities are not a market economy based system. They are heavily subsidized in their ridiculous tuition costs by student loans from the US government.
If they had to live on what they would get in a real market economy, they would perhaps be less amicable to socialist ideology.
Once again, government involvement distorts the natural social/economic conditions.
I agree with that. There would be fewer getting degrees that will land them 35K jobs that only put them 100K in debt.
-
Yes. We know...you have "plans". Arm up, bunker down, hope for apocalypse.
Good plan. Not paranoid and delusional whatsoever.
It's the America of my youth. Having a bunker and supplies and the means to defend them was seen as patriotic in a country facing a Communist Nuclear Threat. See how things have come full circle?
(http://www.civildefensemuseum.com/signs/fssmall.jpg)
-
You forgot the part where we will be laughing at you in the day of your calamity. How very Christian of you...wouldn't Jesus be proud.
Hell, I'm laughing my arse off at you people right now, flailing about and exclaiming hosannas to your king in the white house thinking that this stupid tactic of shaming Principled Conservatives to "join you" in fighting the Left is viable. To a lunatic, reason and sanity most likely seem "flailing"...to borrow a phrase from The Far Side...just plain nuts seems to be the proper psych profile here.
It's not viable. It's pathetic. You and your prince made us the enemy - so, piss off pal. Go and fight 'The Left'. Have fun. While I understand that your internal dissonance requires you to presume others seek a secular "prince" or "king", the sane voters here simply seek out and vote for someone who will fight for the issues they care about as President. We expect any politician to have flaws, as they are all human...but we vote for the guy who's overall package as a leader and executive will best keep the nation strong, prosperous and constitutional. That's a bit more boring than your much proclaimed prince and king scenarios...an odd bit of fantasy on your part...but reality is often less exciting than one's imagination.
Dude, just go back to your bunker, enjoy an MRE and some recycled water...crank up some old Jimmy Swaggart tapes...polish up your AK...and wait for your chance to laugh at all of us "crazy" folks. I'm sure, if your patient, you'll get that last laugh you're so desperate for. In the meantime, leave the adults to discuss how to move the nation down a more conservative and RATIONAL path in the small hopes we can forestall your hoped for apocalypse.
-
It's the America of my youth. Having a bunker and supplies and the means to defend them was seen as patriotic in a country facing a Communist Nuclear Threat. See how things have come full circle?
(http://www.civildefensemuseum.com/signs/fssmall.jpg)
No, propaganda posters aside, it was always seen as just plain nuts.
The end of the world may come, miniscule though the likelihood may be in our lifetime, but you hiding out in a bunker won't forestall it. Keeping a few guns, ammo and some food on hand for lesser emergencies has always been wise...but full on hiding in your bunker praying for nuclear apocalypse so you can laugh at your fellow citizens, not so much.
-
No, propaganda posters aside, it was always seen as just plain nuts.
The end of the world may come, miniscule though the likelihood may be in our lifetime, but you hiding out in a bunker won't forestall it. Keeping a few guns, ammo and some food on hand for lesser emergencies has always been wise...but full on hiding in your bunker praying for nuclear apocalypse so you can laugh at your fellow citizens, not so much.
Your apparent perception of your fellow Americans is pitiful. Maybe you have been watching too many National Geographic Specials on teevee. What you call a "bunker" in this part of the world is known as a "storm shelter", "dugout", or "root cellar" and dates back to pioneer days. The mandan put their whole house in the ground and called it an "earthlodge". Catlin documented them when he came through, as did Lewis and Clark. Not only do these sort of structures take advantage of natural refrigeration/heating (58-60 degrees year round) but they are a great place to go if a tornado is imminent. That is prudence, not wacko stupidity as you seem to believe.
No one here is hiding, waiting for the end of the world. In fact, I have a ringside seat for WWIII, and the nearly 40 years I have had that seat, nothing much has gone up, and little has come down. So I haven't been hiding, but I've spent a career on oil rigs in seven different states and raised kids and grandkids and am enjoying great grandkids, and life goes on. But it would be folly in an increasingly complex world which has more points of failure and with more serious consequences than it did in my youth, to ignore trends, governmental stupidity, economic ludicrousness, and bask in the insanity of normalcy bias.
Those old shelters were stocked, the signs put up, knowing full well that the masses would not survive well, if at all, if they were needed. They were a placebo. But the people were thrown that bone while the Congress and even the POTUS had their bunkers built from the Greenbrier to White Sulfur Springs and Mount Weather, and Cheyenne Mountain, (to name a few) and I noticed the missile silos are dug in pretty well, too. Maybe there is something to having a bunker, there is even one in the White House.
Theirs seem to be a little better setup than the ones for the 'little folk'.
Amazing what you can do with other people's money.
Anyway, With the DPRK rattling sabers, who knows? We certainly took Cuba seriously enough, and Castro may have been a Communist, but he wasn't a nutcase like little Kim.
Oh, the rifles have changed. I have this black one that shoots smaller, faster bullets, and holds more instead of the old bolt action (well, I kept that, too, it's still good farther out). I have food for the family a couple of months, but not enough to feed the neighborhood for long, and I prefer having a pantry to running to town for every little thing-- it's just more convenient.
I don't think anyone is praying for nuclear apocalypse, no one who has studied the effects of radiation on people would wish that on even the most annoying people.
It is a possibility, slightly more likely that someone somewhere will pop one off than it was, simply because more unpredictable governments are getting the tech to start one, and they really don't give a damn who they kill, including their own with all those virgins in paradise just waiting for them, or a 50+ year score to settle in a war that never ended, just had a cease-fire.
Apparently your vision of the present differs, and that's okay. There are all sorts of ideas out there I find odd, counter to the survival of this country, and even the human race, that people embrace wholeheartedly as sophisticated, scientific, and correct. Y'all go right ahead and believe what you will, but that doesn't mean others will agree with you. And if we happen to point out a few things here and there, consider it isn't because we're hiding in some hole in the ground (although those have made me a living over the years), ti's because, well, folks might be doing things which will prove unwise in the long run and we would be remiss if we didn't pipe up.
So yep, having a 'bunker' and supplies and the means to defend them should still be patriotic, especially since we have a Communist leader threatening to nuke us--even if he is the product of the mating of a kimchi crazed outhouse rat and one of the guard dogs in the palace. He is still sending up missiles and setting off nukes.
Me, I'd just as soon he drop over dead as a post, but failing that, it bears paying a little attention to stuff.
-
No, propaganda posters aside, it was always seen as just plain nuts.
The end of the world may come, miniscule though the likelihood may be in our lifetime, but you hiding out in a bunker won't forestall it. Keeping a few guns, ammo and some food on hand for lesser emergencies has always been wise...but full on hiding in your bunker praying for nuclear apocalypse so you can laugh at your fellow citizens, not so much.
5 So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city. 6 And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd. 7 But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered. 8 And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, It is better for me to die than to live.
-
I would say Trump has performed better than expected so far. I am not pleased with his aggressive anti-trade posture, and I am not too keen on his boorish style. Other than that, few complaints.
It does appear to me the world has gone insane over Trump. I have never seen an American leader who could drive people so absurdly crazy, both for and against.
-
I would say Trump has performed better than expected so far. I am not pleased with his aggressive anti-trade posture, and I am not too keen on his boorish style. Other than that, few complaints.
It does appear to me the world has gone insane over Trump. I have never seen an American leader who could drive people so absurdly crazy, both for and against.
I agree with you Victor and I'm one of those who did not vote for him.
-
I would say Trump has performed better than expected so far. I am not pleased with his aggressive anti-trade posture, and I am not too keen on his boorish style. Other than that, few complaints.
It does appear to me the world has gone insane over Trump. I have never seen an American leader who could drive people so absurdly crazy, both for and against.
I think some of what endures him to his fans is his ability to drive their enemies absurdly crazy.
-
I think some of what endures him to his fans is his ability to drive their enemies absurdly crazy.
By winning against the bloated and self serving status quo. And that’s the savory part. Mmm Mmm good.
-
How very Christian of you...wouldn't Jesus be proud.
He would be. I was quoting HIS Word. (John 1:1-3, 14 - Jesus WAS the God of the OT)
Because I have called and you refused to listen, I have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded, because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you, when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you.
Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently but will not find me. Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD, and would have none of my counsel and despised all my reproof, therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices.
For the simple are killed by their turning away, and the complacency of fools destroys them.- Proverbs 1:24-32
Ancient Israel and the Jews in 70 AD got to experience that firsthand.
To a lunatic, reason and sanity most likely seem "flailing"...
Of course people like you call me a lunatic. And you and others will call me and those like me, much worse than just lunatic, and do worse because of your visceral hatred of God for the one of your imagination as time goes on.
Dude, just go back to your bunker, enjoy an MRE and some recycled water...crank up some old Jimmy Swaggart tapes...polish up your AK...and wait for your chance to laugh at all of us "crazy" folks.
As I said, I am already laughing at the pathetic attempts to ridicule and shame principled Christian Conservatives to abandon their principles to join your crusade to "fight the Left" with the Left. You folks will continue to provide plenty of levity with these lame pleas and shaming attempts which will undoubtedly get more shrill. Your clairvoyance failure notwithstanding yet again, I am no fan of Swaggart and not particularly fond of AKs either. But you go ahead with the mind-picture you have constructed in your head, you are good at that.
I'm sure, if your patient, you'll get that last laugh you're so desperate for.
I'm laughing now, but unfortunately I get to go through all the horrors and suffering you and this people have brought to bear upon us, and your wrath will be turned upon those of us whom you have already declared public enemies because we refuse to salute your political messiahs.
In the meantime, leave the adults to discuss how to move the nation down a more conservative and RATIONAL path in the small hopes we can forestall your hoped for apocalypse.
I know that's a nice way of demanding that I buzz off, but sorry pal - I have no intention of shutting up.
-
I would say Trump has performed better than expected so far. I am not pleased with his aggressive anti-trade posture, and I am not too keen on his boorish style. Other than that, few complaints.
It does appear to me the world has gone insane over Trump. I have never seen an American leader who could drive people so absurdly crazy, both for and against.
It's amazing. I never have either. It's also appalling to me that so many GOP members have no problem with it.
-
I would say Trump has performed better than expected so far. I am not pleased with his aggressive anti-trade posture, and I am not too keen on his boorish style. Other than that, few complaints.
It does appear to me the world has gone insane over Trump. I have never seen an American leader who could drive people so absurdly crazy, both for and against.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qv8RSreIM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qv8RSreIM)
Yep.
-
I would say Trump has performed better than expected so far. I am not pleased with his aggressive anti-trade posture, and I am not too keen on his boorish style. Other than that, few complaints.
It does appear to me the world has gone insane over Trump. I have never seen an American leader who could drive people so absurdly crazy, both for and against.
He wants it that way.
-
He wants it that way.
I would question the wisdom of establishing government by emotional polarization based on a personality. IIRC, that has generally not worked out well, historically.
-
To make it worse, knowledge wants to be free! Khan Academy can teach virtually anything without costing you anything. The only reason we demand ridiculously expensive college tuition is to subsidize this university system and the people in it, all for us to be rewarded with them undermining the country!
Texas has at least pushed the idea of a $10,000.00 degree program. This is the direction things should be going. There is no reason the costs of education should increase when the ability to transfer knowledge is getting easier and cheaper every year.
A completely online bachelors is a piece of cake. Or a cinch. Whatever tickles your pixels.
Livestreaming technology is here, now.
A major problem will be accreditation, since the education lobby controls much of that.
Time to "uber" the education industry, to a greater extent than already done. And make courses easily transferable, and long lasting.
-
I would question the wisdom of establishing government by emotional polarization based on a personality. IIRC, that has generally not worked out well, historically.
Nope.
-
Nope.
Hey, people. I didn't want Trump either but I think labeling his voters as emotional and, by inference, stupid is just plain wrong.
I couldn't vote but I think if it had come down to it, I would have voted for Trump to keep Hillary out.
And I'm not emotional about Trump; I am realistic.
It is a FACT that he is the president. And I think he has done many good things.
And I also think the hate displayed against him by the media and the entertainment industry including sports is both irrational and disgraceful.
-
Hey, people. I didn't want Trump either but I think labeling his voters as emotional and, by inference, stupid is just plain wrong.
I couldn't vote but I think if it had come down to it, I would have voted for Trump to keep Hillary out.
And I'm not emotional about Trump; I am realistic.
It is a FACT that he is the president. And I think he has done many good things.
And I also think the hate displayed against him by the media and the entertainment industry including sports is both irrational and disgraceful.
All I said was "nope." :shrug:
-
All I said was "nope." :shrug:
Well, I assumed you were agreeing with the poster you quoted.
If it was just a general 'nope' to everything, I could possibly agree.
-
Well, I assumed you were agreeing with the poster you quoted.
If it was just a general 'nope' to everything, I could possibly agree.
OK. "Nope" to everything. I'm in a contrarian mood today. :tongue2:
-
Well, I assumed you were agreeing with the poster you quoted.
If it was just a general 'nope' to everything, I could possibly agree.
My agreeing with this true statement: I would question the wisdom of establishing government by emotional polarization based on a personality, did not warrant your self-defensive, and at the same time witheringly personal attack on those who disagree with you, response.
I assume you also would question the wisdom of establishing government by emotional polarization based on a personality.
So I assume you would agree with my "Nope."
And thus, your trying to pick yet another fight with me, is totally unnecessary.
Peace. :beer:
-
My agreeing with this true statement: I would question the wisdom of establishing government by emotional polarization based on a personality, did not warrant your self-defensive, and at the same time witheringly personal attack on those who disagree with you, response.
I assume you also would question the wisdom of establishing government bye emotional polarization based on a personality.
So I assume you would agree with my "Nope."
And thus, your trying to pick yet another fight with me, is totally unnecessary.
Peace. :beer:
@musiclady
You are mistaken, @Emjay does not pick fights. Poor little lamb is a perpetual victim of everyone she disagrees with picking fights with her.
-
@musiclady
You are mistaken, @Emjay does not pick fights. Poor little lamb is a perpetual victim of everyone she disagrees with picking fights with her.
It's SO sad, ain't it? **nononono*
-
@musiclady
You are mistaken, @Emjay does not pick fights. Poor little lamb is a perpetual victim of everyone she disagrees with picking fights with her.
uuuuuuuuh YUP!
That's exactly what I did when I said "Nope."
-
"Nope."
(https://new2.fjcdn.com/comments/All+aboard+the+nope+train+to+_24a4d814c5775589528539a5652534c3.jpg)
-
"Nope."
WHERE did you get that picture of me???
-
First of all, setting aside unwise campaign rhetoric, we need all conservatives back in this struggle. That includes NTrs and everyone else of good conscience.
Would President Hillary Clinton have;
1. Put Justice Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
2. Ended DACA and the used it as a bargaining chip for better Border enforcement and a wall.
3. Exited the Paris Agreement.
4. Brought down NAFTA and reset for a new negotiation across the board.it.
5. Ended Obamacare insurance subsidies of over 7 billion dollars.
6. Deeply cut government regulation.
7. Nominated large numbers of Conservative justices to the Federal courts.
8. Decertified the Iran deal.
9. Stood up to NFL players disrespecting the anthem, flag and our national identity.
10. Proposed deep cuts in Corporate tax rates across the board.
11. Proposed deep cuts in taxes for the middle class.
12. Waged war against grotesque liberal media bias.
13. Imposed immigration limits on terror risk nations and fought for them in the courts.
14. Set the Justice Department and the admin to oppose "Sanctuary" cities.
15. Allowed private companies/insurers to NOT provide abortion coverage against their own moral views.
16. Opposed hysterical calls for strong new gun control legislation following the Vegas shooting.
17. Advocated for increased defense spending and revitalization in particular of our decaying naval forces.
18. Supported police and law enforcement at every turn against groups like ANTIFA and BLM.
19. Called consistently for protection of the unborn, and supporting a strict post 20 week ban on abortions.
20. Fought for new legislation, even if congress failed in its part, to repeal Obamacare.
This is just a partial list, but it should make clear to those who like to claim the President is a liberal just like Clinton and/or the Dems in general...and that it matters not between he and Hillary who won the White House. Well, guess what? It matters...and it matters in a YUGE way. Those of us who have supported Trump see all of his flaws, no less than those who consider themselves NT's, but we also see the vast and Conservatively positive differences between himself and Clinton. And while his conservatism may not be as pure as some like, nor his history as devoid of moderate to left associations whilst he was a businessman, this list demonstrates just how strongly he is and has been fighting for conservatism.
I post this for one reason, and one reason only...that those of you who are conservatives but not supporters of the President....and yes, I and nearly all Trump supporters respect your position...will now come around and join with us in what is quickly becoming an existential cultural and ideological struggle for the future of this nation. You are needed, just as we pro Trump folks will be needed down the road when a President Pence or President Cruz are fighting the radical Left. No one asks that anyone set aside their views or halt all critiques of policies and behaviors you disagree with...just that you let the bigger picture of what we face from the Left persuade you get back into the fight FOR an imperfect Republican President.
Who needs 20? I joined the fight against the left two decades ago. Why? Because I detest commies. And that sentiment has only grown over those past two decades.... and especially during the eight years of Obamanation.
They have infiltrated and infected every aspect of our lives and every venue of government, media and entertainment. They're a disease that I much suspect will be fatal to this nation.... given enough time and leniency to their leftist agenda.
I'll say it again. As long as Trump stands against the radical left in America, I will stand with or in support of Trump. (Disclaimer: that does NOT mean that I will approve of his every utterance, EO or twittering tweet, however.)
-
WHERE did you get that picture of me???
It was taken in Morristown, AZ (No kidding!).
-
You know, this problem is more extensive than just the media. I think one of the reasons Universities turn out so many left wing kook bats is because the Universities are not a market economy based system. They are heavily subsidized in their ridiculous tuition costs by student loans from the US government.
If they had to live on what they would get in a real market economy, they would perhaps be less amicable to socialist ideology.
Once again, government involvement distorts the natural social/economic conditions.
Distorts being.... the nice way of saying how badly government fubars every damned thing it touches. Kinda like Obama on steroids.
-
A completely online bachelors is a piece of cake. Or a cinch. Whatever tickles your pixels.
Livestreaming technology is here, now.
A major problem will be accreditation, since the education lobby controls much of that.
Time to "uber" the education industry, to a greater extent than already done. And make courses easily transferable, and long lasting.
Yes, this. Exactly. You have the right of it.
-
Yes, this. Exactly. You have the right of it.
Except that the Guardians of the Pipeline also control that which can be streamed via their monopolies.
Just watched a fella I know well this morning, get his channel and his entire registration booted off of YouTube because he was streaming a program that was critical of Islam.
The Beast is not going to permit alternative views or technologies compete with their broadcast narratives.
-
Yes, this. Exactly. You have the right of it.
Computer technology could help eliminate the madness of loading our kids in buses every morning and delivering them to government indoctrination centers (public schools) and then busing them back home in the afternoon. In congested cities school buses play havoc with morning and afternoon traffic. We could save tax money on schools. Then there’s the danger to children walking in traffic to think about.
I could definitely see a future when schools become obsolete.
-
Computer technology could help eliminate the madness of loading our kids in buses every morning and delivering them to government indoctrination centers (public schools) and then busing them back home in the afternoon. In congested cities school buses play havoc with morning and afternoon traffic. We could save tax money on schools. Then there’s the danger to children walking in traffic to think about.
I could definitely see a future when schools become obsolete.
Florida already has FLVS, Florida Virtual School, for homeschoolers. I doubt that it is the only state.
-
Computer technology could help eliminate the madness of loading our kids in buses every morning and delivering them to government indoctrination centers (public schools) and then busing them back home in the afternoon. In congested cities school buses play havoc with morning and afternoon traffic. We could save tax money on schools. Then there’s the danger to children walking in traffic to think about.
I could definitely see a future when schools become obsolete.
Rednecks went home-schooled long ago... And were castigated for it.
-
Except that the Guardians of the Pipeline also control that which can be streamed via their monopolies.
Just watched a fella I know well this morning, get his channel and his entire registration booted off of YouTube because he was streaming a program that was critical of Islam.
The Beast is not going to permit alternative views or technologies compete with their broadcast narratives.
Several of my favorites on Youtube already gone... A lot of them Christian channels... And oddly, bushcrafters and homesteaders too.
-
Rednecks went home-schooled long ago... And were castigated for it.
Yep, that's true. Most of the other homeschool families I run across are liberals. For some reason conservatives have pretty uniformly denounced homeschooling, the biggest reason being they think it's improper socialization for children. At least that has been my experience.
-
Except that the Guardians of the Pipeline also control that which can be streamed via their monopolies.
Just watched a fella I know well this morning, get his channel and his entire registration booted off of YouTube because he was streaming a program that was critical of Islam.
The Beast is not going to permit alternative views or technologies compete with their broadcast narratives.
I have attempted to draw people here's attention to the problem. Many of them laud the role the internet has played in bypassing the propaganda media, and I try to point out as often as possible that this period of influence is likely going to be short because the leftest behemoth is moving to acquire complete control over the internet and thereby prohibit dissenting opinions.
Goolag censors videos on YouTube that they disagree with, which is anything critical of Islam, anything critical of Homosexuality, anything graphic that is critical of abortion, and many people who are just conservative minded.
Twitfest kicks people off or suspends them regularly for voicing unapproved opinions, and so does Fascist book.
Virtually every major internet company promotes the politics of San Fransisco because virtually all of them are located in San Fransisco.
These people aren't using government licenses to do their censorship, they are using their economic might and the power of monopoly they have created by getting so large that nobody can compete with them.
No, the Beast is not going to permit free speech.
-
Yep, that's true. Most of the other homeschool families I run across are liberals. For some reason conservatives have pretty uniformly denounced homeschooling, the biggest reason being they think it's improper socialization for children. At least that has been my experience.
It's pretty strong out here. And growing...
But it is funny that the two main communities come out of rednecks and hippies... Homesteading makes for strange bedfellows. But it is an amazement how those two groups are finding common ground.
-
Rednecks went home-schooled long ago... And were castigated for it.
Home schooling has changed a lot over the years. I did a paper on it in College, and I was fascinated by what I found, and this was back in the 80's. Popular acceptance has grown enormously since then. Back then, it was primarily thought of as a way for racists and religious fanatics to keep their kids away from "bad influences," but as the schools became lawless places, where real cops patrol the halls, bullies have free reign and there are metal detectors at the doors, people started seeing advantages to keeping their children home. Multiple families now form alliances where different parents teach different subjects, many of them experts working in real-life jobs with applicable skills.
The most common quote I kept seeing from proponents in my research was "One amateur adult can do better with one child than one professional can do with 30 children."
The argument used to be, "You're depriving your children of learning social skills by keeping them home." Now the argument has become "I don't want my child learning the social skills being taught by your leftist indoctrination centers."
This movement will drive the next generation to the political right. The leftist academics know this, and are starting anew effort to crack down on home schooling, so watch for it.
-
Yep, that's true. Most of the other homeschool families I run across are liberals. For some reason conservatives have pretty uniformly denounced homeschooling, the biggest reason being they think it's improper socialization for children. At least that has been my experience.
The times, they are a changing.
-
The premise of this list is like saying Communists are good, because they helped us stop the Nazis.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
-
“No, the Beast is not going to permit free speech.”
At least not the speech it hates: traditional, conservative, America first speech.
-
Home schooling has changed a lot over the years. I did a paper on it in College, and I was fascinated by what I found, and this was back in the 80's. Popular acceptance has grown enormously since then. Back then, it was primarily thought of as a way for racists and religious fanatics to keep their kids away from "bad influences," but as the schools became lawless places, where real cops patrol the halls, bullies have free reign and there are metal detectors at the doors, people started seeing advantages to keeping their children home. Multiple families now form alliances where different parents teach different subjects, many of them experts working in real-life jobs with applicable skills.
The most common quote I kept seeing from proponents in my research was "One amateur adult can do better with one child than one professional can do with 30 children."
The argument used to be, "You're depriving your children of learning social skills by keeping them home." Now the argument has become "I don't want my child learning the social skills being taught by your leftist indoctrination centers."
This movement will drive the next generation to the political right. The leftist academics know this, and are starting anew effort to crack down on home schooling, so watch for it.
Except that even 20 years ago, the crackdown on the exodus of students being homeschooled was a major thing that was the catalyst (among others) to flee South. They actually passed some policy or law that said that unless a parent was a certified teacher, homeschooling was illegal. Also the curriculums were being scrutinized and forced to change to accommodate the same indoctrination bullshit forced down the skulls of much in the publik skrewels.
We finished schooling my kids at home, but we had to leave the big urban in order to do it.
-
Well, I assumed you were agreeing with the poster you quoted.
If it was just a general 'nope' to everything, I could possibly agree.
If you have issue with what I say, you can address me. Kindly let me know what emotionally established governments have fared well, historically. As for the emotionalism, I believe I not only am not the first to recognize it, but there are even others who seek to capitalize on it.
This ad caught my attention on television. I assure you it is a genuine advertisement, and it is presented here as proof of what I just stated, because it seeks to tap that fervor for just two easy payments of $19.95, plus shipping and handling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qv8RSreIM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qv8RSreIM)
QED :shrug:
-
Who needs 20? I joined the fight against the left two decades ago. Why? Because I detest commies. And that sentiment has only grown over those past two decades.... and especially during the eight years of Obamanation.
They have infiltrated and infected every aspect of our lives and every venue of government, media and entertainment. They're a disease that I much suspect will be fatal to this nation.... given enough time and leniency to their leftist agenda.
I'll say it again. As long as Trump stands against the radical left in America, I will stand with or in support of Trump. (Disclaimer: that does NOT mean that I will approve of his every utterance, EO or twittering tweet, however.)
888high58888 Right there with you darlin! Except in my case it's been more than 4 decades!
-
The argument used to be, "You're depriving your children of learning social skills by keeping them home." Now the argument has become "I don't want my child learning the social skills being taught by your leftist indoctrination centers."
This movement will drive the next generation to the political right. The leftist academics know this, and are starting anew effort to crack down on home schooling, so watch for it.
Already ahead of that curve. I helped to build a schoolhouse for the hillbillies up west of town. Not a 'schoolhouse' per se, as that falls under regulatory burden. But enough of the hillfolk are accredited that they could better teach a subject than the parents directly, and there is something to the idea of giving the parents a break and the kids opportunity for socializing...
So we built a grange hall - what all y'all would call a 'community center'... Turns out it is good for that schooling, and as a church, and as all sorts of things.
If I can get my feet under me, that's something I might just repeat - I have a chunk of highway fronted land available up west of town... I think I will do a general store up there, with a grange hall and kinda playground thing behind... With hitching rails for horses... I won't make a ton of money, but I will be an active part of a community of great, great people.
There is an arsenal of great depth for a people who remember and do things the old way.
-
Except that even 20 years ago, the crackdown on the exodus of students being homeschooled was a major thing that was the catalyst (among others) to flee South. They actually passed some policy or law that said that unless a parent was a certified teacher, homeschooling was illegal. Also the curriculums were being scrutinized and forced to change to accommodate the same indoctrination bullshit forced down the skulls of much in the publik skrewels.
We finished schooling my kids at home, but we had to leave the big urban in order to do it.
Yup.
When my Mom was little during the Depression, my Aunt was Special Needs, and the State kept trying to take her from my GPs to institutionalize her. My farmer Grandfather insisted, no, he could do a better job of it. The state finally demanded, "Look, no teaching cert, no soap. Hand her over." So he said "Is that your final argument?" "Yeah. Pack her bags we're leaving." He said "OK, first let me show you something." He went to his bureau and pulled from a drawer his teaching certificate. He had earned it years before when he got his degree, but had decided to farm instead. He'd kept the cert all those years, and the State was forced to honor it, and leave my Mom's family alone.
-
This ad caught my attention on television. I assure you it is a genuine advertisement, and it is presented here as proof of what I just stated, because it seeks to tap that fervor for just two easy payments of $19.95, plus shipping and handling.
O_M_G.
What an insult to intelligence.
And the taiga forest.
And the griz.
**nononono*
-
“No, the Beast is not going to permit free speech.”
At least not the speech it hates: traditional, conservative, America first speech.
Twitter Founder Announces Strict New Thought Police Rules
(https://static.pjmedia.com/trending/user-content/51/files/2017/10/AP_17256548801597.sized-770x415xc.jpg)
In a series of tweets on Friday, Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey laid out vague reasoning for implementing some new rules governing content.
1/ We see voices being silenced on Twitter every day. We’ve been working to counteract this for the past 2 years.
— jack (@jack) October 14, 2017
That's a bit ironic, given that it's usually Twitter that's doing the silencing.
Twitter has a history of unevenly applying rules. People on the left can tweet the most vile things without being suspended, while conservatives often seem to be singled out.
Early last year, Twitter announced the formation of a "Trust and Safety Council" to monitor abuse. The council has many very liberal groups as members, and no conservative groups. That rather skews what is viewed as offensive.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/10/13/twitter-founder-announces-strict-new-thought-police-rules/
-
O_M_G.
What an insult to intelligence.
And the taiga forest.
And the griz.
**nononono*
I thought I'd surfed into a parody at first on some liberal channel, then I realized it was real.
**nononono* indeed.
-
Twitter Founder Announces Strict New Thought Police Rules
(https://static.pjmedia.com/trending/user-content/51/files/2017/10/AP_17256548801597.sized-770x415xc.jpg)
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/10/13/twitter-founder-announces-strict-new-thought-police-rules/
Great. The SPLC in 140 characters or less... **nononono*
-
My agreeing with this true statement: I would question the wisdom of establishing government by emotional polarization based on a personality, did not warrant your self-defensive, and at the same time witheringly personal attack on those who disagree with you, response.
I assume you also would question the wisdom of establishing government by emotional polarization based on a personality.
So I assume you would agree with my "Nope."
And thus, your trying to pick yet another fight with me, is totally unnecessary.
Peace. :beer:
@musiclady No, I am not trying to pick a fight with you and I'm actually sorry that I was confrontive the very first time I challenged you.
Obviously, we have different opinions, but you are a nice lady and one I don't want to fight with.
So, yeah, peace and beer.
-
@musiclady No, I am not trying to pick a fight with you and I'm actually sorry that I was confrontive the very first time I challenged you.
Obviously, we have different opinions, but you are a nice lady and one I don't want to fight with.
So, yeah, peace and beer.
If you make that Reisling, you have a deal!
(There aren't any gifs for that!)
@Emjay
-
Yup.
When my Mom was little during the Depression, my Aunt was Special Needs, and the State kept trying to take her from my GPs to institutionalize her. My farmer Grandfather insisted, no, he could do a better job of it. The state finally demanded, "Look, no teaching cert, no soap. Hand her over." So he said "Is that your final argument?" "Yeah. Pack her bags we're leaving." He said "OK, first let me show you something." He went to his bureau and pulled from a drawer his teaching certificate. He had earned it years before when he got his degree, but had decided to farm instead. He'd kept the cert all those years, and the State was forced to honor it, and leave my Mom's family alone.
Wow. Great story. This tyranny by the education folks is one reason I am so glad Trump appointed Betsy DeVos. The left absolutely despises her.
-
If you make that Reisling, you have a deal!
(There aren't any gifs for that!)
@Emjay
I'm a Miller gal but we'll do Reisling if you want.
-
Wow. Great story. This tyranny by the education folks is one reason I am so glad Trump appointed Betsy DeVos. The left absolutely despises her.
Did I mention he was terribly crippled by Polio? He was.
-
I'm a Miller gal but we'll do Reisling if you want.
:thumbsup2:
-
If you have issue with what I say, you can address me. Kindly let me know what emotionally established governments have fared well, historically. As for the emotionalism, I believe I not only am not the first to recognize it, but there are even others who seek to capitalize on it.
This ad caught my attention on television. I assure you it is a genuine advertisement, and it is presented here as proof of what I just stated, because it seeks to tap that fervor for just two easy payments of $19.95, plus shipping and handling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qv8RSreIM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qv8RSreIM)
QED :shrug:
OMG. Now I have to go back, oh, wait, I remember. You were referring to Trump voters in a disparaging manner, claiming that they were voting with emotion and not with reason.
I think that is a way over-reach. Yes, some people really feel an emotional fervor for Trump, which I don't understand. But a LOT of people voted for him.
I would have voted for him even thought I bitterly opposed him all through the primaries. It would not have been an emotional decision but a common sense one.
We could not have afforded Hillary. She would have completed Obama's job of ruining the nation.
I would not let Trump hate prevent me from making rational decisions. I was for him because I wanted someone not named Hillary. Even if he had done nothing but been a place holder, we would have been better off.
But he has been much better than I expected. You can nitpick that original list posted here and we certainly haven't got much of what we want but we've got a lot. I think we can all agree that a big reason we haven't gotten some things is Congress, not the President.
-
He's doing alright. All I can ask right now.
-
The premise of this list is like saying Communists are good, because they helped us stop the Nazis.
Or, vice versa. (There were those who said just that prior to and during World War II.)
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
But then my animus is against metastasising government, period. Donaldus Minimus's best punctures
against it have been those regulations once imposed by executive order that he reversed. This is good.
Unfortunately, he could reverse every still standing executive order past, and his removal of the regulatory
side of big government would be the equivalent of a microscopic nibble on the corner of a baloney sandwich.
And I have never yet heard him speak clearly, knowingly, and affirmatively athwart big government qua
big government.
Things remain, I fear, big government for me, but not for thee, even as, unfortunately, in too many
places where you expect people on the right to know better, things seem to be free speech for me, but
not for thee. I stand athwart big government from either the left or the right. ("Conservative"
judges? I'm not interested in "conservative" judges, I'm interested in judges who will construe the Constitution
reasonably---knowing well enough that even "conservative" judges can misconstrue it and have misconstrued
it from time to time.)
p.s. I voted "none of these candidates" last November, with no regret and with no apology. That said, it is
well enough past time to stop leaning upon the old "Would President Hilarious Rodent Clinton have
done this, that, the other thing?" If people will pardon the expression, she lost. (And how!) Get over it. ;)
-
I think we can all agree that a big reason we haven't gotten some things is Congress, not the President.
Personally, I think you could lay some in one direction and some in the other direction. But then
I'm not even mildly concerned about "getting things done"---I prefer to wish and hope for getting
things undone, which we are much in need of, ahem, doing. ;)
Shame you're a Miller girl. I would have offered you nothing but the best . . .
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bf/1b/5b/bf1b5be6b56a797889da4b0743195de9--neon-signs.jpg)
-
Who needs 20? I joined the fight against the left two decades ago. Why? Because I detest commies. And that sentiment has only grown over those past two decades.... and especially during the eight years of Obamanation.
They have infiltrated and infected every aspect of our lives and every venue of government, media and entertainment. They're a disease that I much suspect will be fatal to this nation.... given enough time and leniency to their leftist agenda.
I'll say it again. As long as Trump stands against the radical left in America, I will stand with or in support of Trump. (Disclaimer: that does NOT mean that I will approve of his every utterance, EO or twittering tweet, however.)
You nailed it again, @XenaLee. I hate liberals. And we are suffering right now because of a residual influence of Obama. I think he was a racial divider and I place a lot of the blame on him for the racial problems we are seeing now with the football protests, which are total crapola.
The left completely controls the entertainment industry and they tolerate any sort of deviancy as long as it's by a fellow lefty.
I don't know why we have to put a disclaimer on every post in which we give some credit to Trump but, apparently we do or we will be thrown in the pit of worshippers.
-
OMG. Now I have to go back, oh, wait, I remember. You were referring to Trump voters in a disparaging manner, claiming that they were voting with emotion and not with reason.
I think that is a way over-reach. Yes, some people really feel an emotional fervor for Trump, which I don't understand. But a LOT of people voted for him.
I would have voted for him even thought I bitterly opposed him all through the primaries. It would not have been an emotional decision but a common sense one.
We could not have afforded Hillary. She would have completed Obama's job of ruining the nation.
I would not let Trump hate prevent me from making rational decisions. I was for him because I wanted someone not named Hillary. Even if he had done nothing but been a place holder, we would have been better off.
But he has been much better than I expected. You can nitpick that original list posted here and we certainly haven't got much of what we want but we've got a lot. I think we can all agree that a big reason we haven't gotten some things is Congress, not the President.
History can be a real bitch.
I was fairly calm when I was sure Hillary would win. If Trump has a glimmer of a chance, I won't be calm anymore. I really would prefer Hillary and the thought of a trump win makes me realize it all the more.
-
Who needs 20? I joined the fight against the left two decades ago. Why? Because I detest commies. And that sentiment has only grown over those past two decades.... and especially during the eight years of Obamanation.
They have infiltrated and infected every aspect of our lives and every venue of government, media and entertainment. They're a disease that I much suspect will be fatal to this nation.... given enough time and leniency to their leftist agenda.
I'll say it again. As long as Trump stands against the radical left in America, I will stand with or in support of Trump. (Disclaimer: that does NOT mean that I will approve of his every utterance, EO or twittering tweet, however.)
@XenaLee
I HEARD that!
After jumping down my own throat every day almost all day for the most infuriating 8 years of my life under the boot of that narcissistic cretin previously infesting the Oval Office I'll salute Trump whenever and wherever he gets it right, and not confuse him with 'The Perfect, Conservative President'.
It isn't Chapter and Verse, by the bullet reminder list of his campaign promises, but he is taking positive steps towards dismantling the Gargantua of the Swamp.
I've previously called our stab him in the back Congress 'that GD Sex Workers Union', which isn't quite right.
They're not the street walkers themselves.
They're the Pimps putting us on a leash to walk the streets/pay the bills for them.
So long as Trump keeps taking the pruning shears to those leashes, being called/thought of as a Trump-Bot is the least of my nits wanting picking with the NR set.
They're welcome to put their sunglasses on and go back to adoring themselves in the mirror no matter how many self aggrandizing See I Told You So's they've already launched while hoping and praying that the next one will be the Final, Impeaching one that proves they're the omniscient, all seeing, all knowing, 2nd coming of Johnny Carson's Karnak they present themselves to be.
Even Reagan said that if he couldn't get everything he wanted he'd take the 70% he could get and go back for the rest later.
-
Personally, I think you could lay some in one direction and some in the other direction. But then
I'm not even mildly concerned about "getting things done"---I prefer to wish and hope for getting
things undone, which we are much in need of, ahem, doing. ;)
Shame you're a Miller girl. I would have offered you nothing but the best . . .
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bf/1b/5b/bf1b5be6b56a797889da4b0743195de9--neon-signs.jpg)
Better yet..... offer her this (my choice if no Corona is available)....
(https://www.bing.com/th?id=A4ad0d2e5ad5b5fef9017ed9de79a4ddf&w=110&h=110&c=7&rs=1&qlt=95&pcl=f9f9f9&cdv=1&pid=16.1)
-
History can be a real bitch.
@Emjay ... this might come in handy...
(http://www.med-health.net/images/10405054/image001.jpg)
@RoosGirl
-
@XenaLee
I HEARD that!
After jumping down my own throat every day almost all day for the most infuriating 8 years of my life under the boot of that narcissistic cretin previously infesting the Oval Office I'll salute Trump whenever and wherever he gets it right, and not confuse him with 'The Perfect, Conservative President'.
It isn't Chapter and Verse, by the bullet reminder list of his campaign promises, but he is taking positive steps towards dismantling the Gargantua of the Swamp.
I've previously called our stab him in the back Congress 'that GD Sex Workers Union', which isn't quite right.
They're not the street walkers themselves.
They're the Pimps putting us on a leash to walk the streets/pay the bills for them.
So long as Trump keeps taking the pruning shears to those leashes, being called/thought of as a Trump-Bot is the least of my nits wanting picking with the NR set.
They're welcome to put their sunglasses on and go back to adoring themselves in the mirror no matter how many self aggrandizing See I Told You So's they've already launched while hoping and praying that the next one will be the Final, Impeaching one that proves they're the omniscient, all seeing, all knowing, 2nd coming of Johnny Carson's Karnak they present themselves to be.
Even Reagan said that if he couldn't get everything he wanted he'd take the 70% he could get and go back for the rest later.
Yes... but.... you do realize, I hope.....
that Reagan never did get that "rest" later. Never evah gonna happen when you're dealing with or making "deals" with the rats.
-
OMG. Now I have to go back, oh, wait, I remember. You were referring to Trump voters in a disparaging manner, claiming that they were voting with emotion and not with reason.
I think that is a way over-reach. Yes, some people really feel an emotional fervor for Trump, which I don't understand. But a LOT of people voted for him.
I would have voted for him even thought I bitterly opposed him all through the primaries. It would not have been an emotional decision but a common sense one.
We could not have afforded Hillary. She would have completed Obama's job of ruining the nation.
I would not let Trump hate prevent me from making rational decisions. I was for him because I wanted someone not named Hillary. Even if he had done nothing but been a place holder, we would have been better off.
But he has been much better than I expected. You can nitpick that original list posted here and we certainly haven't got much of what we want but we've got a lot. I think we can all agree that a big reason we haven't gotten some things is Congress, not the President.
There were major emotional drives present in those who supported Trump.
One was the 'getevenism' that has been quite prominent among some of his supporters, even if much of that was misdirected at conservatives.
The whole "MAGA" thing relied on an emotional response. America already is great. We even survived the Obama years. We can be greater, and I'm all for that.
Then there was the flip side, people who voted for Trump out of FEAR that Hillary might win, and of what that would mean for America.
So yes, there was a stew of emotion surrounding people's motivation for voting for Trump. Even in the primaries, the whole "Lyin' Ted" smear campaign was based on emotional responses--look at Ted, and tell me does he look like the type to have seven hot mistresses? He seems to be a snart guy and all that, a Conservative, and sharp on the Constitution, but seven mistresses? Really?
Or that his father was in with Oswald to kill JFK?
Nope to both, not credible, but the emotions played well for making him less likely to get votes in the Bible Belt and New England, respectively, and were well timed to push a bow wave of emotion through those primaries--after which, the allegations died. No coincidence, and masterfully played, but again, relying on emotions, positive and negative, to collect votes.
You don't even have to be a shrink to figure that out.
There may well have been those voters who sat down and figured, without emotion, that Trump would be best for the country. I won't discuss my opinion of their logic because it is moot; he got elected. But I think those are in the minority, frankly, when it comes to what compelled people to vote for the President.
The ad I linked plays on emotions, too, rather blatantly, to use as a sales device. Make of that what you will. It is real, and I have seen it on television.
I posted that list of promises here (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,233460.0.html), while it was still fresh, in the spirit of letting Mr. Trump set his own standard to meet. I wasn't holding him to MY standards, which many would have patently considered unfair. I was seeking to get around the animosity of those who did support Mr. Trump who were busy calling those of us who did not anything from "Hillary Supporters" to "traitors" who should be shot. (Seems a mite emotional, to me anyway, and nonsense that could not have been farther form the truth.) So, while you may not have been one who voted based on emotion, there were plenty who did. If, by making that generic statement, you felt I was specifically referring to you personally, I apologize for any undeserved insult.
In many aspects he has done well, especially for the energy industry which was under relentless attack by the Obama administration, and I commend him for progress, and with the aid of Congress, stopping some of the most onerous policies of the Obama EPA from going into effect. That, and all his subsequent accomplishments had no bearing on people's motivation for voting for him, because those things had not been accomplished.
As for the Congress, I remain puzzled as to why the repeals of Obamacare which breezed through when they had no chance of being signed can't be passed now, but I think that particular perfidy rests solely with the Congressional Leadership, as do other measures which must originate with the Congress in order to be made law. Without overreach, Mr. Trump has done well at going around that Congressional roadblock, to the point of removing some of Obama's overreach, which did not require anything more than a pen and phone to remove. If the Congress had remained true to the promises they made on the stump to TEA party types just to get elected, we'd be doing a lot better than we are. As ever, it is readily apparent the Congressional leadership has little or no desire to fulfill those promises, and none to lead the Majority Party to unite behind policy which would do wonders to restore the economic health of the Middle class in America, that of small business, and to liberate people from the yoke of the ACA so they can make their own appropriate health care decisions in a marketplace ripe with options better suited to the needs and beliefs of its customers.
A fine opportunity to reduce the size and scope is being squandered by a few in the Congressional GOP who have emerged as their own special interest group, just one in a position to stymie any alteration to the status quo which is causing this nation and it people grievous harm. (May Almighty God reward them as they so richly deserve.)
All in all, with the exception of the twitter wars and the usual full court press by the liberal media, the president has done fairly well. In some regards, better than I had expected. Trust me when I say that is an unemotional assessment.
However, a great number of those who voted for him voted out of the euphoric attachment to 'their guy' or the abject fear of another Democrat in the White House, and if online posts and articles are any measure, that factored heavily in his electoral victory (present company excluded, of course).
-
Yes... but.... you do realize, I hope.....
that Reagan never did get that "rest" later. Never evah gonna happen when you're dealing with or making "deals" with the rats.
Perhaps. However, times have changed.
The Democrat Party today, as a whole, is in a far more dispersed, and weaker position than in Reagan's day.
The mid terms are going to hurt them far worse than 2016 did.
The onus is now on us, the Citizens, to primary our GOP slum lords out.
-
Perhaps. However, times have changed.
The Democrat Party today, as a whole, is in a far more dispersed, and weaker position than in Reagan's day.
The mid terms are going to hurt them far worse than 2016 did.
The onus is now on us, the Citizens, to primary our GOP slum lords out.
:amen:
-
Better yet..... offer her this (my choice if no Corona is available)....
(https://www.bing.com/th?id=A4ad0d2e5ad5b5fef9017ed9de79a4ddf&w=110&h=110&c=7&rs=1&qlt=95&pcl=f9f9f9&cdv=1&pid=16.1)
I'll have to try that, I've never had it before.
-
First of all, setting aside unwise campaign rhetoric, we need all conservatives back in this struggle. That includes NTrs and everyone else of good conscience.
Would President Hillary Clinton have;
1. Put Justice Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
2. Ended DACA and the used it as a bargaining chip for better Border enforcement and a wall.
3. Exited the Paris Agreement.
4. Brought down NAFTA and reset for a new negotiation across the board.it.
5. Ended Obamacare insurance subsidies of over 7 billion dollars.
6. Deeply cut government regulation.
7. Nominated large numbers of Conservative justices to the Federal courts.
8. Decertified the Iran deal.
9. Stood up to NFL players disrespecting the anthem, flag and our national identity.
10. Proposed deep cuts in Corporate tax rates across the board.
11. Proposed deep cuts in taxes for the middle class.
12. Waged war against grotesque liberal media bias.
13. Imposed immigration limits on terror risk nations and fought for them in the courts.
14. Set the Justice Department and the admin to oppose "Sanctuary" cities.
15. Allowed private companies/insurers to NOT provide abortion coverage against their own moral views.
16. Opposed hysterical calls for strong new gun control legislation following the Vegas shooting.
17. Advocated for increased defense spending and revitalization in particular of our decaying naval forces.
18. Supported police and law enforcement at every turn against groups like ANTIFA and BLM.
19. Called consistently for protection of the unborn, and supporting a strict post 20 week ban on abortions.
20. Fought for new legislation, even if congress failed in its part, to repeal Obamacare.
This is just a partial list, but it should make clear to those who like to claim the President is a liberal just like Clinton and/or the Dems in general...and that it matters not between he and Hillary who won the White House. Well, guess what? It matters...and it matters in a YUGE way. Those of us who have supported Trump see all of his flaws, no less than those who consider themselves NT's, but we also see the vast and Conservatively positive differences between himself and Clinton. And while his conservatism may not be as pure as some like, nor his history as devoid of moderate to left associations whilst he was a businessman, this list demonstrates just how strongly he is and has been fighting for conservatism.
I post this for one reason, and one reason only...that those of you who are conservatives but not supporters of the President....and yes, I and nearly all Trump supporters respect your position...will now come around and join with us in what is quickly becoming an existential cultural and ideological struggle for the future of this nation. You are needed, just as we pro Trump folks will be needed down the road when a President Pence or President Cruz are fighting the radical Left. No one asks that anyone set aside their views or halt all critiques of policies and behaviors you disagree with...just that you let the bigger picture of what we face from the Left persuade you get back into the fight FOR an imperfect Republican President.
@Mesaclone
We were "needed" in November of last year when it was time to vote. Trump won, so the burden of doing the work and getting his agenda through is on him. What are we supposed to do, go to DC and hold his pen for him?
-
@Emjay ... this might come in handy...
(http://www.med-health.net/images/10405054/image001.jpg)
@RoosGirl
@Suppressed
Lol
-
Perhaps. However, times have changed.
The Democrat Party today, as a whole, is in a far more dispersed, and weaker position than in Reagan's day.
The mid terms are going to hurt them far worse than 2016 did.
The onus is now on us, the Citizens, to primary our GOP slum lords out.
Well said sir! I concur! :beer:
-
@Mesaclone
We were "needed" in November of last year when it was time to vote. Trump won, so the burden of doing the work and getting his agenda through is on him. What are we supposed to do, go to DC and hold his pen for him?
Sending him some help to congress, and the senate in particular, would be a good thing!
-
Sending him some help to congress, and the senate in particular, would be a good thing!
Yep. Despite the absence of roll call votes on some of the more salient issues, it's pretty obvious where the obstructions are.
-
Sending him some help to congress, and the senate in particular, would be a good thing!
@Bigun
Repubs were in control last time I checked.
-
@Bigun
Repubs were in control last time I checked.
Just because they have an R behind their nane does NOT make them republican!
-
Just because they have an R behind their nane does NOT make them republican!
Well they certainly are NOT Conservative. That is for absolute sure.
-
Just because they have an R behind their nane does NOT make them republican!
Officially, it does. It just doesn't make them Conservatives.
-
Well they certainly are NOT Conservative. That is for absolute sure.
Only a tiny minority are even remotely conservative. Out of the 535 in both houses you can probably count them with just your fingers.
-
Perhaps. However, times have changed.
The Democrat Party today, as a whole, is in a far more dispersed, and weaker position than in Reagan's day.
The mid terms are going to hurt them far worse than 2016 did.
The onus is now on us, the Citizens, to primary our GOP slum lords out.
Oh you betcha times have changed. For the worse. I don't believe it's a good thing to be over-confident. Especially in this toxic political climate. And a lot can change between now and November, 2018.
Many folks are disgusted already at the obstructionism going on by the RINOs in Congress. No Obamacare repeal, no tax reform, no defunding of PP, and on and on. They figure what's the point in voting them into power any more. So unless something drastically changes between now and then, we may end up losing majority control to the rats. Which is what they are counting on.
Hell, Hillary is already using the Weinstein (the Democrats' current sacrificial lamb) scandal to go after Trump. And maybe that was their plan all along. It ain't over till the fat lady sings though, and so far, I don't think Hillary is even capable of a croak, much less a song. But whatever you do, don't fall back on that over-confidence. We haven't been able to primary the die-hard RINOs like Collins, McCain, McConnell and several others of their ilk. It's not as easy as it sounds.
-
@Bigun
Repubs were in control last time I checked.
But... that control means nothing (to our side) if or when it only takes a few traitors and sellouts (the usual suspects like McCain, Collins, Lee, Paul, etc.... to kill a bill. Control is an illusion, IOW.
-
I've already got nearly 20 years under my belt and I've passed the torch.
-
@Bigun
Repubs were in control last time I checked.
@CatherineofAragon
And, just in case anyone's forgotten, Congress was not intended to be a mere presidential rubber stamp.
It's the president's job to recommend (and, concurrently, convince) Congress to address this or
that matter---not to order it. And it's Congress's job to legislate but not because the president
demands as opposed to recommend it.
-
@CatherineofAragon
And, just in case anyone's forgotten, Congress was not intended to be a mere presidential rubber stamp.
It's the president's job to recommend (and, concurrently, convince) Congress to address this or
that matter---not to order it. And it's Congress's job to legislate but not because the president
demands as opposed to recommend it.
And further, congress is supposed to represent the people who elect them instead of the denzions of K Street.
-
He wants it that way.
No doubt. Given the way GWB allowed the MSM to define him, I do see the rationale. Still, I find his style hard to stomach. But I consider style a minor thing. I tend to judge politicians based on what they do as opposed to what they say. And what Trump has done has been mostly positive, certainly way better than we would have gotten from HRC.
-
I've already got nearly 20 years under my belt and I've passed the torch.
LOL! Not me. I've just reached the point where I can use my age as a weapon.
-
And further, congress is supposed to represent the people who elect them instead of the denzions of K Street.
Represent, not merely be their hired hand:
(I)t ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest
correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to
have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his
duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all
cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened
conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not
derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence,
for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but
his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
. . . If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite
to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other,
from any endeavour to give it effect . . . Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end
of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for. (Emphasis added.)
---Edmund Burke, "Speech to the Electors of Bristol."
-
Represent, not merely be their hired hand:
(I)t ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest
correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to
have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his
duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all
cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened
conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not
derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence,
for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but
his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
. . . If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite
to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other,
from any endeavour to give it effect . . . Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end
of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for. (Emphasis added.)
---Edmund Burke, "Speech to the Electors of Bristol."
I would submit that if he ignores the opinions of his constituents for the judgement altering praise of those who have their narrow self interest at heart, he has betrayed the interest of the nation and those he represents for the favorable opinion of a self interested few and any potential of personal benefit to be derived from those relationships, now or in the future. Opposition to the opinion of his constituents in such cases may well not be virtue but betrayal of that public trust.
-
Opposition to the opinion of his constituents in such cases may well not be virtue but betrayal of that public trust.
You take that case by case, of course. And you bear in mind that when a constituency
demands an act that contravenes the Constitution, or would obstruct or abrogate
basic rights, the scrupulous representative votes, in effect, "Not just no, but hell no!"
-
Represent, not merely be their hired hand:
(I)t ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest
correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to
have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his
duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all
cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened
conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not
derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence,
for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but
his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
. . . If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite
to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other,
from any endeavour to give it effect . . . Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end
of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for. (Emphasis added.)
---Edmund Burke, "Speech to the Electors of Bristol."
Such principles and men whom espouse and hold onto them, are in this age now roundly declared to be the enemies of the 'good'. The mob and it's passions with demand for gratification and retribution now rule the electorate while K Street money does all the talking and influencing of men who have no principles and interests other than their own enrichment and empowerment.
There is no one in Washington who has the mindset of a servant. Rather all of them are of the mindset to rule, by which this people now clamor for.
-
You take that case by case, of course. And you bear in mind that when a constituency
demands an act that contravenes the Constitution, or would obstruct or abrogate
basic rights, the scrupulous representative votes, in effect, "Not just no, but hell no!"
I agree, and that is why I used the words "may well". Unfortunately we are in an era in which the interests best represented appear to be the personal interests of the officeholder, all too often.
-
Oh you betcha times have changed. For the worse. I don't believe it's a good thing to be over-confident. Especially in this toxic political climate. And a lot can change between now and November, 2018.
Many folks are disgusted already at the obstructionism going on by the RINOs in Congress. No Obamacare repeal, no tax reform, no defunding of PP, and on and on. They figure what's the point in voting them into power any more. So unless something drastically changes between now and then, we may end up losing majority control to the rats. Which is what they are counting on.
Hell, Hillary is already using the Weinstein (the Democrats' current sacrificial lamb) scandal to go after Trump. And maybe that was their plan all along. It ain't over till the fat lady sings though, and so far, I don't think Hillary is even capable of a croak, much less a song. But whatever you do, don't fall back on that over-confidence. We haven't been able to primary the die-hard RINOs like Collins, McCain, McConnell and several others of their ilk. It's not as easy as it sounds.
I don't disagree with a word you've said.
My point is that the Dems are in even worse shape with Their base.
And they've No where to turn for votes. They and their Bizzaro world posturings are about holding onto or recapturing the BLM/Antifa vote.
Our Party doesn't care about us. It doesn't care if it loses. It's easier to play the blame game when you're the minority.
The fervor and non-stop S##t shoveling the Dems are infused with is from sheer, stark raving terror of losing their crackpot constituents.
Pelosi got booed at a speech in her home town for not being ludicrous enough with her assault on Trump.
It's a race to the bottom and I see Them hitting it, bursting into flames and never recovering, before we do.
-
This is the perfect thread to read when you can sleep at 4 am. I'm going to ponder this...
-
Such principles and men whom espouse and hold onto them, are in this age now roundly declared to be the enemies of the 'good'. The mob and it's passions with demand for gratification and retribution now rule the electorate while K Street money does all the talking and influencing of men who have no principles and interests other than their own enrichment and empowerment.
There is no one in Washington who has the mindset of a servant. Rather all of them are of the mindset to rule, by which this people now clamor for.
Know your history. The vast majority of men in any and every government in the history of mankind, have been "of the mindset to rule" no less and no more than our representatives today. Even the Founding Father's were beset with an elitist streak as evidenced both in their writings and in numerous constitutional constructs such as the electoral college. They were an intellectual and fiscal elite for the most part, and quite willing to let the concerns of class and monetary success guide their dealings. This does not negate their classical liberal philosophical approach, which structured the constitution itself, but even they accepted the flawed nature of all men...whether they ruled in democratic society or as tyrannical entities (ie the kings of Europe).
This "mindset to rule" plagued Athenian democracy and the Roman Senate to no less degree than it rules modern American politics...and men of high ideal railed against the tyranny of elite rule built on the self interest of the rulers even then. Nothing has changed, though today rather than chase down reformers like the Grachii in the streets and club them to death...fake news stories and intelligence op smears are promulgated to destroy political "rogues" (like President Trump) who upset the status quo.
So its not that "such men are NOW roundly declared to be the enemy of the good", but rather, that non-self interested men in government (exceedingly rare as they are)...almost without exception...have ALWAYS been the enemy of the good as perceived by the status quo. The advocates of government....the rulers...will use orthodoxy, religion, dishonesty, intrigue and outright lies to secure their position and impose their entrenchment within the ruling system...its just what men do by nature. A sad reality of all politics, but one that is foolish to ignore. Thus, the constitution was structured as a means of limiting government to the extent possible, because our Founders DID know that it is the nature of men...all men...to work to their own interest, to rule rather than to serve when they can, and to favor those in society they perceive to be akin to themselves.
So, as we cannot change the nature of our leaders...virtually all of whom are innately corrupt...our best and only hope lies in the effort to strictly enforce the limits on power built into the structure of the constitution itself. Those who hearken to an imaginary "days of old" when men of integrity rose above the clamor to fight for goodness and right are delusional...there were no such days. Men like Cincinnatus and Washington being so extraordinary, that their genuine exploits as leaders become the stuff of myth.
The one bright light is that our Founders, knowing themselves and the nature of men generally, gave us the only practical tool for limiting individual corruption and its effect on our own governance...as citizens, and I think its why we here consider ourselves "Republicans"...we understand that our only true hope is to relentlessly push for candidates who advocate for originalist interpretations of the Constituton and for limited government conceptually.
-
I will add that except the addition of a half dozen or more conservative Senate seats in '18, there isn't alot more to do other than continue to apply pressure on the GOP do-nothings in Congress to get in gear and start passing needed reforms. At some point it is up to those in DC to just to what they said they are going to do.
You want to gut the left? Pass four reform bills:
1) Voter ID (with absentee, same day registration and other reforms) - limits voting fraud
2) Welfare reform - takes away their dependent voting class
3) Immigration reform - limit illegals, limit illegal votes
4) National right-to-work - destroy the union ATM machine Dems use to fund candidates
There are a dozen other little things, but those four will cripple the liberals ability to win elecitons beyond repair.
-
When a people refuse to be self-governed by God and biblical morality, they will be ruled by the tyranny of men... and clamor for it, justify it and insist upon it's need.
Here we are.
-
When a people refuse to be self-governed by God and biblical morality, they will be ruled by the tyranny of men... and clamor for it, justify it and insist upon it's need.
Here we are.
In history, the opposite is the most common scenario. Religion and its related moral authority...have imposed tyranny and destroyed self governance. As for "biblical" authority, I presume you mean your personal understanding of its meaning and purpose...one of a nearly countless set of perceptions and understandings of such authority. Further, you presume your own view of god is clearer than that of others...a belief that can only be held through a combination of ignorance and arrogance. Islamists, for example, assert Koranic authority in much the same way. Christians in late Roman and Medieval times made similar use of Biblical authority to slaughter innocents and annihilate free thought.
Why should your version be any better than past religious tyrannies...or is it because only you know what god wants based on your personal understanding of the bible? No arrogance or ignorance there, right?
This is why men like Thomas Jefferson, though acknowledging important moral lessons that can be taken from religion...and from the bible specifically...fought so hard to ensure religion was not only free from government influence, but also that government not be free of the overt religious "orthodoxy" of sects or individuals believing they, and they alone, know the truth of god.
Mr. Jefferson says it much more eloquently than I ever could, and with even more conviction:
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
And the other FF's often found common ground on this topic with Thomas Jefferson.
"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor on the priesthood
-
In history, the opposite is the most common scenario. Religion and its related moral authority...have imposed tyranny and destroyed self governance. As for "biblical" authority, I presume you mean your personal understanding of its meaning and purpose...one of a nearly countless set of perceptions and understandings of such authority. Further, you presume your own view of god is clearer than that of others...a belief that can only be held through a combination of ignorance and arrogance. Islamists, for example, assert Koranic authority in much the same way. Christians in late Roman and Medieval times made similar use of Biblical authority to slaughter innocents and annihilate free thought.
Why should your version be any better than past religious tyrannies...or is it because only you know what god wants based on your personal understanding of the bible? No arrogance or ignorance there, right?
That you equate biblical Christians in this country with militant Islamists is the mark of a true Leftist.
Thanks for outing yourself yet again.
-
That you equate biblical Christians in this country with militant Islamists is the mark of a true Leftist.
Thanks for outing yourself yet again.
Yet again, indeed!
From the first day he signed on, he outted himself.
-
That you equate biblical Christians in this country with militant Islamists is the mark of a true Leftist.
Thanks for outing yourself yet again.
Had I done so, you'd have a point. But, as they say, that strawman don't hunt. Try...for a change of pace...just a LITTLE intellectual honesty.
What I DID do was equate late Roman and Medieval Christians to the modern Islamist in terms of their methodology for imposing their beliefs. Feel free to argue that point, but there's really no purpose in making up one that I did not assert...unless it is the absence of a sound argument for your case.
-
Yet again, indeed!
From the first day he signed on, he outted himself.
Yes. I'm outed. I share the views of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams as to the role of any particular sect directing our governance. How shameful of me.
-
I wonder if we can get Mod1 drunk again.
-
Just because they have an R behind their nane does NOT make them republican!
@Bigun
The same will likely be true of any that we send into that pit, given rare exceptions.
Power is a drug.
-
But... that control means nothing (to our side) if or when it only takes a few traitors and sellouts (the usual suspects like McCain, Collins, Lee, Paul, etc.... to kill a bill. Control is an illusion, IOW.
@XenaLee
Yes, I agree. And I don't see that changing.
-
@CatherineofAragon
And, just in case anyone's forgotten, Congress was not intended to be a mere presidential rubber stamp.
It's the president's job to recommend (and, concurrently, convince) Congress to address this or
that matter---not to order it. And it's Congress's job to legislate but not because the president
demands as opposed to recommend it.
Now, @EasyAce, stop that talk. Don't be treasonous.
-
I wonder if we can get Mod1 drunk again.
It's Five O'clock somewhere. Just don't offer him Schnapps.
-
@Bigun
The same will likely be true of any that we send into that pit, given rare exceptions.
Power is a drug.
And evil is contagious. They must sprinkle it into the water in DC, in fact. Or maybe it's in the champagne.
-
Now, @EasyAce, stop that talk. Don't be treasonous.
(http://images.all-free-download.com/images/graphiclarge/laughing_and_pointing_emoticon_312207.jpg)
-
Had I done so, you'd have a point. But, as they say, that strawman don't hunt. Try...for a change of pace...just a LITTLE intellectual honesty.
What I DID do was equate late Roman and Medieval Christians to the modern Islamist in terms of their methodology for imposing their beliefs. Feel free to argue that point, but there's really no purpose in making up one that I did not assert...unless it is the absence of a sound argument for your case.
Look bub, we're not stupid here on this board. We know what your intent was with your original comment. You can sing and dance upon justifications for your intellectual superiority all the day long and it does not make a whit's worth of difference of the fact that we know why you equated biblical morality, and my faith with being no different than radical Islamists and historical popery.
So shove it.
you presume your own view of god is clearer than that of others...a belief that can only be held through a combination of ignorance and arrogance. Islamists, for example, assert Koranic authority in much the same way. Christians in late Roman and Medieval times made similar use of Biblical authority to slaughter innocents and annihilate free thought.
We know exactly why you wrote that - thus creating the very 'straw man' you decided to knock down and then project onto me.
-
And evil is contagious. They must sprinkle it into the water in DC, in fact. Or maybe it's in the champagne.
@XenaLee
No wonder Ted Cruz doesn't like those cocktail parties. ^-^
-
Look bub, we're not stupid here on this board. We know what your intent was with your original comment. You can sing and dance upon justifications for your intellectual superiority all the day long and it does not make a whit's worth of difference of the fact that we know why you equated biblical morality, and my faith with being no different than radical Islamists and historical popery.
So shove it.
We know exactly why you wrote that - thus creating the very 'straw man' you decided to knock down and then project onto me.
Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, there's no we. Just a you. Unless of course you are referring to yourself as the "royal" we, which would be fitting given your ego issues. The fact that you are unable to read a sentence that is clearly stated, and impute the correct meaning, is also a "you" problem. If you wish to label that as being called stupid, that's...once again...a "you" choice. Personally, I'd label it intentional blindness...but you go girl and call it what you will.
My intent was clearly stated in the original statement...then I restated it to you just as clearly. A comparison of early Christian tyranny to modern Islamist methodology...a very straightforward and apt analogy. You can change it in your head to mean whatever you want, as it seems to have created sufficient cognitive dissonance in your shallow world view to prompt the need to build a strawman...but, again, all you.
As for projecting...your lack of self awareness is amusing, yet troubling. Read what others write. Refute it or not as you see fit...but don't make up strawmen to argue with...its dishonest and therefore...well...ungodly. Plus its just boring...its like you're arguing with yourself but putting it in print for others to see...and trust me, nobody wants to know about your internal dialogue OR what's going on inside your head.
Hopefully, WE are now clear.
-
and trust me, nobody wants to know about your internal dialogue OR what's going on inside your head.
Hopefully, WE are now clear.
Trust me, few want to hear what bullshit dialog you spew externally outside of your mouth on this board either.
That much is indeed clear.
-
In history, the opposite is the most common scenario.
Yet we live in an era in which the libertine assert dominance and seek to (and do) use the law to impose that nature instead of any religious dogma. Beyond mere co-existence, that which is religiously opposed to the tenets of religion asserts a claimed 'right' to impose itself upon others, not just by its presence, but to invade commerce and the very education of the children of those who are opposed to it. That, certainly, is no less a tyranny.
We are not in danger of being overly religious, nor has this country in its history been significantly endangered by such (although prohibition did do its share of damage). The far greater hazard is the government-enforced abandonment of such standards to a libertine anti-religion, and we are seeing that.
-
Yet we live in an era in which the libertine assert dominance and seek to (and do) use the law to impose that nature instead of any religious dogma. Beyond mere co-existence, that which is religiously opposed to the tenets of religion asserts a claimed 'right' to impose itself upon others, not just by its presence, but to invade commerce and the very education of the children of those who are opposed to it. That, certainly, is no less a tyranny.
We are not in danger of being overly religious, nor has this country in its history been significantly endangered by such (although prohibition did do its share of damage). The far greater hazard is the government-enforced abandonment of such standards to a libertine anti-religion, and we are seeing that.
@Smokin Joe
VERY well said sir! And 100% correct as well! :beer:
-
Yet we live in an era in which the libertine assert dominance and seek to (and do) use the law to impose that nature instead of any religious dogma. Beyond mere co-existence, that which is religiously opposed to the tenets of religion asserts a claimed 'right' to impose itself upon others, not just by its presence, but to invade commerce and the very education of the children of those who are opposed to it. That, certainly, is no less a tyranny.
We are not in danger of being overly religious, nor has this country in its history been significantly endangered by such (although prohibition did do its share of damage). The far greater hazard is the government-enforced abandonment of such standards to a libertine anti-religion, and we are seeing that.
I will assert these libertines, as you call them, are every bit as religious. Humanism, and it's priests in 'science'.
There is no moral neutral. In the words of Bob Dylan, 'You have to Serve Somebody'.
And what would be hilarious, were it not so desperate and profane, is that these high-minded sophists are repeating, letter by letter, the will of the ancient gods. Even now, it's pagan root is discernible, to those who would bother to study the issue.
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
Prov 14:2 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
-
@XenaLee
No wonder Ted Cruz doesn't like those cocktail parties. ^-^
True dat. And.... whatever you do.... never evah go golfing with da Democrats. Bad things happen.... (Think: Podded). :silly:
-
Yet we live in an era in which the libertine assert dominance and seek to (and do) use the law to impose that nature instead of any religious dogma. Beyond mere co-existence, that which is religiously opposed to the tenets of religion asserts a claimed 'right' to impose itself upon others, not just by its presence, but to invade commerce and the very education of the children of those who are opposed to it. That, certainly, is no less a tyranny.
We are not in danger of being overly religious, nor has this country in its history been significantly endangered by such (although prohibition did do its share of damage). The far greater hazard is the government-enforced abandonment of such standards to a libertine anti-religion, and we are seeing that.
Well, we're not really in disagreement on the issue you state...that government should neither enforce nor oppose an agenda that is religious OR anti-religious. All that it SHOULD do is ensure that each citizen is free to practice whatever belief they find worthy...presuming that belief does not physically harm other citizens.
And I consistently and vehemently oppose any "libertine" effort to impose their version of a moral agenda as well. That does not negate the concerns of men like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who's views are what I am asserting in this thread. If you want to argue for a reinvigoration of religious belief across the nation than kudos to you. If you wish to make government part and parcel of that renewal...beyond individual leaders using a bully pulpit...then I will oppose such a thing as the aforementioned FF's did.
-
And I consistently and vehemently oppose any "libertine" effort to impose their version of a moral agenda as well. That does not negate the concerns of men like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who's views are what I am asserting in this thread. If you want to argue for a reinvigoration of religious belief across the nation than kudos to you. If you wish to make government part and parcel of that renewal...beyond individual leaders using a bully pulpit...then I will oppose such a thing as the aforementioned FF's did.
You seem to be very uninformed on the HUGE role religion played in the formation of this country and it wasn't any one specific religion either!
-
I will assert these libertines, as you call them, are every bit as religious. Humanism, and it's priests in 'science'.
There is no moral neutral. In the words of Bob Dylan, 'You have to Serve Somebody'.
And what would be hilarious, were it not so desperate and profane, is that these high-minded sophists are repeating, letter by letter, the will of the ancient gods. Even now, it's pagan root is discernible, to those who would bother to study the issue.
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
Prov 14:2 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
There were no ancient gods...just humans trying to explain the incomprehensible in terms they could relate to. Often that attempt at comprehension took a violent or even absurd direction, despite the best intentions of believers. This is the nature of religion in general, and it is why men like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (even George Washington by many accounts) were Deists. As am I. Wisdom dictates that god exists, and likewise asserts that men will always fail in their attempts to define and categorize the infinite...it is beyond us. THIS is why the Founders were adamant that all men be free to practice any belief they so choose...and that governments only task in relation is to protect that freedom.
-
You seem to be very uninformed on the HUGE role religion played in the formation of this country and it wasn't any one specific religion either!
No, I'm actually quite well informed on the topic. The Founders drew directly from Classical Liberalism and men like Locke...contextually, looking at each FF's personal religious views misses the target...as they were diverse in their personal preferences. But collectively, they drew on the philosophical concept that the threat of religious tyranny...and the corrupting effect of "state" religion...must be mitigated. The idea of a wall of separation did not emerge from Thomas Jefferson out of the blue....long years of Protestant-Catholic struggle across Europe and within England had taught lasting lessons about the perils any government faces when it directly involves itself in the religious choices of its citizenry.
-
There were no ancient gods...just humans trying to explain the incomprehensible in terms they could relate to. Often that attempt at comprehension took a violent or even absurd direction, despite the best intentions of believers. This is the nature of religion in general, and it is why men like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (even George Washington by many accounts) were Deists. As am I. Wisdom dictates that god exists, and likewise asserts that men will always fail in their attempts to define and categorize the infinite...it is beyond us. THIS is why the Founders were adamant that all men be free to practice any belief they so choose...and that governments only task in relation is to protect that freedom.
Absolutely incorrect. And deism is nothing but a cop-out.
-
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and
of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public
Trust under the United States. (Emphasis added.)
---Article VI, Section 3, the Constitution of the United States.
-
Absolutely incorrect. And deism is nothing but a cop-out.
Good argument. I could just as easily claim that of Protestantism or Catholicism....with a better argument...but I wouldn't. Because in the end it's simply about belief....which, again, applies to all religious views. Including my own.
-
Good argument. I could just as easily claim that of Protestantism or Catholicism....with a better argument...but I wouldn't. Because in the end it's simply about belief....which, again, applies to all religious views. Including my own.
No, it is not. It is about proof. If you cannot prove your faith, then you are doing it wrong. The 'faith' part is in believing the proofs - and therein understanding that the god of your choice is indeed God, and will do as he said.
And in that, there is only One.
-
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and
of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public
Trust under the United States. (Emphasis added.)
---Article VI, Section 3, the Constitution of the United States.
And I, for one, have never once suggested that any be imposed! But that does not mean that ANY member of the government must give up his religious beliefs in order to serve in government.
-
No, I'm actually quite well informed on the topic. The Founders drew directly from Classical Liberalism and men like Locke...contextually, looking at each FF's personal religious views misses the target...as they were diverse in their personal preferences. But collectively, they drew on the philosophical concept that the threat of religious tyranny...and the corrupting effect of "state" religion...must be mitigated. The idea of a wall of separation did not emerge from Thomas Jefferson out of the blue....long years of Protestant-Catholic struggle across Europe and within England had taught lasting lessons about the perils any government faces when it directly involves itself in the religious choices of its citizenry.
And that citizenry includes those who happen to hold public offices!
-
And I, for one, have never once suggested that any be imposed! But that does not mean that ANY member of the government must give up his religious beliefs in order to serve in government.
I sometimes think the one biblical admonition those in government adhere to without question or fail,
whether or not they enunciate it while acting, is Christ's distinction between Caesar and God---while
they make bloody sure that Caesar makes off with the whole pot.
-
I sometimes think the one biblical admonition those in government adhere to without question or fail,
whether or not they enunciate it while acting, is Christ's distinction between Caesar and God---while
they make bloody sure that Caesar makes off with the whole pot.
As I have said before... the lesson of that particular passage is oft mistaken:
Everything is God's. Even the very breath in Caesar's lungs.
-
And that citizenry includes those who happen to hold public offices!
I agree. I don't think anyone here...to my knowledge..believes a public official can't state their belief while in office.
-
No, it is not. It is about proof. If you cannot prove your faith, then you are doing it wrong. The 'faith' part is in believing the proofs - and therein understanding that the god of your choice is indeed God, and will do as he said.
And in that, there is only One.
If you think belief in god is based on proof...wow. Just wow.
How does one prove their personal version of an omnipotent, omniscient and thus incomrehensible being? Its beyond absurd to make such an assertion. You believe what you believe on faith or not at all...there is no proof.
-
Let's can the theological discussion, shall we? We have claims on both sides vis the existence of God, it's only a matter of time before we have claims everybody's going to Heck, and TBR just doesn't do that. Capiche? Gracias.
M1
-
If you think belief in god is based on proof...wow. Just wow.
How does one prove their personal version of an omnipotent, omniscient and thus incomrehensible being? Its beyond absurd to make such an assertion. You believe what you believe on faith or not at all...there is no proof.
There are many things beyond our comprehension - many beings as well.
All we can go by is by what they have declared to us - Which is why the deist god is such a cop out - Something intangible, undetectable, and non-participatory is exactly the sort of god one would have if one subscribes to the humanist position (which necessarily is 'do as thou wilt' in the end, and evidence of the true god that they serve, not that he is ever true.).
All others have thrown their hat in the ring by way of declarations through their agents. and demonstrations of miracles and power. Study those things, and you will find but one of unchanging law and character. You will find one who demonstrates that he, and only he, knows the end from the beginning. The proof, ultimately, is in the prophecy.
But my God is tangible (to everyone, at least indirectly, as he declares) and participatory. I follow in his way, because his way is easy to discern: His tracks are different from the others, due to the scars from the nails that pierced his feet.
To say it well would be a long, long conversation, which I would happily entertain, but which does not belong here, according to the ruleset we operate under.
-
Let's can the theological discussion, shall we? We have claims on both sides vis the existence of God, it's only a matter of time before we have claims everybody's going to Heck, and TBR just doesn't do that. Capiche? Gracias.
M1
Sorry, @Mod1 - I was editing my post while you made yours... I will remove it if you like.
-
Sorry, @Mod1 - I was editing my post while you made yours... I will remove it if you like.
Ships have been known to pass in the night. Proceed as you see fit.
-
I sometimes think the one biblical admonition those in government adhere to without question or fail,
whether or not they enunciate it while acting, is Christ's distinction between Caesar and God---while
they make bloody sure that Caesar makes off with the whole pot.
@EasyAce
I have had numerous conversations with supposed Christian liberals end badly when I simply ask them to direct me to the place where Jesus EVER said words to the effect that I should give my money to Cesar so Cesar can take care of the poor! Don't know why!
-
Let's can the theological discussion, shall we? We have claims on both sides vis the existence of God, it's only a matter of time before we have claims everybody's going to Heck, and TBR just doesn't do that. Capiche? Gracias.
M1
Very multicultural of you.
-
Bigun wrote above:
"You seem to be very uninformed on the HUGE role religion played in the formation of this country and it wasn't any one specific religion either!"
Right on, Bigun!
Those who refuse to acknowledge this historical truth are nothing more than fools.
And even "conservative" forums have a healthy dose of 'em!
-
Computer technology could help eliminate the madness of loading our kids in buses every morning and delivering them to government indoctrination centers (public schools) and then busing them back home in the afternoon. In congested cities school buses play havoc with morning and afternoon traffic. We could save tax money on schools. Then there’s the danger to children walking in traffic to think about.
I could definitely see a future when schools become obsolete.
A new study shows that students learn way more effectively from print textbooks than screens (http://www.businessinsider.com/students-learning-education-print-textbooks-screens-study-2017-10?IR=T)
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,286120.0.html
-
Bigun wrote above:
"You seem to be very uninformed on the HUGE role religion played in the formation of this country and it wasn't any one specific religion either!"
Right on, Bigun!
Those who refuse to acknowledge this historical truth are nothing more than fools.
And even "conservative" forums have a healthy dose of 'em!
An entirely moot point, as no one here refuses to acknowledge historical truth. In fact, the arguments I've made here are based entirely on that truth, and in support I've included numerous direct quotes from our Founding Fathers. Further, as an avid student of history, I've read the Federalist Papers ad nauseam along with a wide range of other writings from the era. I'm not a theologian by any measure, nor is the revolutionary era my specialty, but I do have my MA in Ancient History...so yes, I know how to study historical texts AND how to place them in context. So you'd be wise to accept that we are generally working with same set of facts, yet reaching different conclusions...its an easy out to pretend you know the history of our founding and those who disagree with your perspective are simply ignorant. Worse, its just plain wrong.
With respect to our mod, I understand your concerns and respect your admonition to avoid theological arguments. As importantly, this detour has taken us off track from the real issue of the thread....which is the fact that our President has powerfully fought for a host of strongly conservative issues...meeting with some success but also being thwarted in part by fellow Republicans. Those who dislike the President, all too often are unwilling to acknowledge the things he is actually working toward...and the clearly conservative nature of his governance thus far. That's a shame.
-
And evil is contagious. They must sprinkle it into the water in DC, in fact. Or maybe it's in the champagne.
The love of money is the root of all evil. What is it that Washington DC does again?
-
Let's can the theological discussion, shall we? We have claims on both sides vis the existence of God, it's only a matter of time before we have claims everybody's going to Heck, and TBR just doesn't do that. Capiche? Gracias.
M1
Thank you. It is ironic how religious arguments create the most venom.
-
Thank you. It is ironic how religious arguments create the most venom.
And as we've seen, so do principles when refused to be compromised for political expediency.
Those too create just as much 'venom' if not moreso.
-
A new study shows that students learn way more effectively from print textbooks than screens (http://www.businessinsider.com/students-learning-education-print-textbooks-screens-study-2017-10?IR=T)
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,286120.0.html
So many things wrong with the public schools and, yet, I confess I'm not buying this home school thing.
Why? Because so many people are simply not capable of home schooling. I know I'm not. I don't have the patience.
And home schooling does not fit into our current lifestyle. Most families now have both parents working. And this is because we are not content to have the lifestyle we had 50 years ago.
We were content then to live in modest homes, have one car and take maybe one vacation a year.
We could live on a husband's salary and the wife could stay home with the kids.
Now, people count on the schools as baby sitters as much as educational places.
-
And as we've seen, so do principles when refused to be compromised for political expediency.
Those too create just as much 'venom' if not moreso.
Nope. People here, almost unanimously, respect those who hold to principles. The venom stems from people imagining their principles are superior to those they engage with on the board. The combination of arrogance and ignorance paves the way for that kind of thinking. Fortunately, most people generally see through that kind of self promotion though it does fool some of the people some of the time.
-
Nope. People here, almost unanimously, respect those who hold to principles.
That is an abject lie.
The 'perfect being the enemy of the good' meme is one tossed about nearly every day on this board upon those who hold to principles they demand be surrendered for the 'better good'.
There is contempt and condemnation by people like you for those who hold to principles that have been declared to be an enemy.
The venom stems from people imagining their principles are superior to those they engage with on the board.
That happens when we refuse to surrender them to the likes of you.
Fortunately, most people generally see through that kind of self promotion though it does fool some of the people some of the time.
'Most people' (being); 'smarter'; 'reasonable'; 'non-judgmental'; 'more intelligent' - (than those who refuse to side with us)....
You borrow so liberally from the liberal debate and shaming tactics of the Left - it's truly a marvel to behold that you can call yourself a Conservative with a straight face.
-
OK, we've been doing well here. Let's be careful about straying into personal attacks. Keep the arguments about the ideas, not the Members....
Thanks,
Mod 2
-
That is an abject lie.
The 'perfect being the enemy of the good' meme is one tossed about nearly every day on this board upon those who hold to principles they demand be surrendered for the 'better good'.
There is contempt and condemnation by people like you for those who hold to principles that have been declared to be an enemy.
That happens when we refuse to surrender them to the likes of you.
'Most people' (being); 'smarter'; 'reasonable'; 'non-judgmental'; 'more intelligent' - (than those who refuse to side with us)....
You borrow so liberally from the liberal debate and shaming tactics of the Left - it's truly a marvel to behold that you can call yourself a Conservative with a straight face.
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -Edmund Burke
-
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -Edmund Burke
"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." - Jesus Christ, John 17:17
" For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:21-22
-
*YAWN*
Principles.
Outcomes. Trump is getting authentic conservative stuff done.
Member "Mesaclone" listed them, but there is a more overarching thing: Trump has turned our elite rulers into maniacs who are making mistakes left and right.
I was one, on this board, who decried Trump's approach and nature during the primaries. I liked most all of the Pubbies in that primary (excepting Kasich) and Trump was brutally insulting and bullying towards them. He went to Janesville, WI - a place with an angry former UAW retiree population - and crap-talked Scott Walker for God's sake. Perhaps the most successful and battle-tested Republican governor in recent history.
But, it all changed for me when Trump won the Indiana primary and it was pretty certain that Priebus wasn't going to make the Convention into the circus the media and Left wanted.
Honestly, I've been happy with Trump. Yeah, I wish he'd think twice before tweeting, but he's been an incredible blessing for those of us who want to crack this dysfunctional DC/New York/Hollywood cabal that is forcing our beautiful American political and cultural heritage into the sewer.
-
Outcomes. Trump is getting authentic conservative stuff done.
No, he's really not.
-
No, he's really not.
Yeah, he really is.
Did you read the initial post?
-
Yeah, he really is.
Did you read the initial post?
Sure I did.
-
Sure I did.
Explain to me your affinity for Hillary Clinton. I'm interested.
Because, that was our choice. It wasn't Gary Johnson or Evan McMullan or Jill Stein or any of the other self-serving wannabes.
It was Trump or Clinton. Reality. Trump won. Would you have wished a different outcome?
Trump has nominated and seated Gorsuch. He opened up the Keystone and Dakota pipelines. He's reinvigorated our vital coal industry. He crap-canned the onerous Paris accord. And any thoughts NAFTA, the PPP, the Iran deal and other Obama-era giveaways would stand.
He is hated by the media. He's hated by Hollywood. He's hated by the people like Krauthammer, Kristol, Rubin, Goldberg etc. who have become rich by their opposition to a Democrat regime. Trump has killed their franchise, made them slink to sewers like CNN and MSNBC.
Trump has had a FAR better first nine months in office - for conservatives - that Reagan, Bush 41 or Bush 43.
I shake my head at his style, too. But he WINS. It burns deep in him, it gives him life. Winning. He's winning for us.
-
Explain to me your affinity for Hillary Clinton. I'm interested.
Because, that was our choice. It wasn't Gary Johnson or Evan McMullan or Jill Stein or any of the other self-serving wannabes.
It was Trump or Clinton. Reality. Trump won. Would you have wished a different outcome?
Trump has nominated and seated Gorsuch. He opened up the Keystone and Dakota pipelines. He's reinvigorated our vital coal industry. He crap-canned the onerous Paris accord. And any thoughts NAFTA, the PPP, the Iran deal and other Obama-era giveaways would stand.
He is hated by the media. He's hated by Hollywood. He's hated by the people like Krauthammer, Kristol, Rubin, Goldberg etc. who have become rich by their opposition to a Democrat regime. Trump has killed their franchise, made them slink to sewers like CNN and MSNBC.
Trump has had a FAR better first nine months in office - for conservatives - that Reagan, Bush 41 or Bush 43.
I shake my head at his style, too. But he WINS. It burns deep in him, it gives him life. Winning. He's winning for us.
Oh FFS
-
Oh FFS
That's the entirety of your rebuke?
LOL.
Nice job.
-
Explain to me your affinity for Hillary Clinton. I'm interested.
Because, that was our choice. It wasn't Gary Johnson or Evan McMullan or Jill Stein or any of the other self-serving wannabes.
It was Trump or Clinton. Reality. Trump won. Would you have wished a different outcome?
I can't remember how many people who kept telling me it wasn't a binary choice.
Yes, it really was a binary choice. You were going to get one or the other, and in no rational view could Hillary have been the better choice.
-
That's the entirety of your rebuke?
LOL.
Nice job.
Yeah, that's the only thing that tired, worn out, dumbass statement deserves.
-
Explain to me your affinity for Hillary Clinton. I'm interested.
Because, that was our choice. It wasn't Gary Johnson or Evan McMullan or Jill Stein or any of the other self-serving wannabes.
You people made us your enemy back in the primaries, some of your compatriots threatening to kill us if we didn't vote the way you demanded.
So, affinities for Clinton, Cruz, Paul or whomever no longer matters a whit to me. You made us your enemy, and I have accepted that role as your enemy.
Go march to the tune of your leader in high-step fashion while saluting to your heart's content. I have no interest in supporting, joining or doing shit to help you people do whatever it is you think you want to do. All I know is, we're the enemy according to your repeated mantras of this bullshit.
Fine and good. You do not need us. You said as much, your leader said as much.
Go fight the Left with the Left and have fun.
We have other plans.
He's winning for us.
You keep telling yourself that. Maybe someday you will actually believe it.
-
Yeah, that's the only thing that tired, worn out, dumbass statement deserves.
Run away and hide, princess.
-
Run away and hide, princess.
About damn time someone around here addressed me properly.
-
You people made us your enemy back in the primaries, some of your compatriots threatening to kill us if we didn't vote the way you demanded.
So, affinities for Clinton, Cruz, Paul or whomever no longer matters a whit to me. You made us your enemy, and I have accepted that role as your enemy.
Go march to the tune of your leader in high-step fashion while saluting to your heart's content. I have no interest in supporting, joining or doing shit to help you people do whatever it is you think you want to do. All I know is, we're the enemy according to your repeated mantras of this bullshit.
Fine and good. You do not need us. You said as much, your leader said as much.
Go fight the Left with the Left and have fun.
We have other plans.
You keep telling yourself that. Maybe someday you will actually believe it.
Okay, Invar.
You're a eunuch. Sorry, but you are.
That's okay, I'm sure you're a fine person in real life. But, politically? You're a eunuch.
Trump is doing stuff every single day. He is systematically unraveling every Obama executive order fiat. He's on the right path for most everything in my opinion. I watch what he DOES, not what he tweets.
-
"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." - Jesus Christ, John 17:17
" For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:21-22
What's humorous here, is that you think those quotes support your argument...in actuality, they simply point out a lack of self awareness and an inability to understand the bible itself. But please, post more such quotes to undermine your own argument...however nebulous and poorly thought out that argument may be.
-
Okay, Invar.
You're a eunuch. Sorry, but you are.
That's okay, I'm sure you're a fine person in real life. But, politically? You're a eunuch.
Trump is doing stuff every single day. He is systematically unraveling every Obama executive order fiat. He's on the right path for most everything in my opinion. I watch what he DOES, not what he tweets.
Its futile to apply reason here, Arne. Though I admire your attempt to bring logic to the discussion. You're either going to be met with Invar's random bible quotes...which are generally unrelated to whatever argument he thinks he's making...or some sort of rant from him about how you have no principles because you disagree with him about the President. Either way, its all based in emotion...applying reason or laying out evidence only generates thought free rage.
-
You made us your enemy, and I have accepted that role as your enemy.
And this is why I would not take a side in the Great Trump War on TBR. I have my feelings in the matter, make no mistake, but I don't talk about them because, at the end of the day, I don't need more enemies than I had in the morning. But I won't deny, the supporters of Trump have done their level best to drive the "never Trump" people away, angry.
Now, the hand of friendship has been slapped away so much I can't blame you for considering yourself an enemy, and it's a damned shame. We all have the same basic beliefs about where this country should go.
-
Okay, Invar.
You're a eunuch. Sorry, but you are.
That's okay, I'm sure you're a fine person in real life. But, politically? You're a eunuch.
Trump is doing stuff every single day. He is systematically unraveling every Obama executive order fiat. He's on the right path for most everything in my opinion. I watch what he DOES, not what he tweets.
The problem with that is.... everything Trump is doing (undoing Obama's EOs via Trump EOs).... can be easily (and will be) undone by the next Democrat administration. It's temporary, IOW.
-
For what it's worth, I appreciate your opening post.
We need to understand - if we're authentic Conservatives - that Trump's actions have been stellar thus far.
I don't take the media bait about the discord and betrayals to his supporters that seems to energize both the Progtoads and his little group of Never-Trumpers who have been seriously disempowered since he won the election and took office last January.
Trump is a builder and negotiator. Building a huge tower in places like Manhattan, Brooklyn and Miami requires indomitable focus and patience. He only knows opportunity and urgency and he's brought that to the White House. And, for the first time since 2009, we have a real patriot leading our government. Trump is an authentic patriot. Obama was a feckless, incompetent "man of the world" who gained influence by promising to diminish American influence.
Sorry. I really like him. He's turning stuff upside down. As needed. If he vents on Twitter, so be it. That's Donald.
Every single member at this site who finds a reason to reflexively attack POTUS needs to articulate their real opposition. As a Walker, Rubio, Cruz supporter here ... who was angered by Trump's style and discourteous nature ... I am over it.
Good grief, Hillary Clinton was the only other option. And, Trump has been a better conservative than W.
I don't get it. Why the lingering animus? He pissed me off 20 months ago but I'm not unhappy now.....!
-
And this is why I would not take a side in the Great Trump War on TBR. I have my feelings in the matter, make no mistake, but I don't talk about them because, at the end of the day, I don't need more enemies than I had in the morning. But I won't deny, the supporters of Trump have done their level best to drive the "never Trump" people away, angry.
I can't speak for others, but my own position is this. I can forgive someone for being foolish when no ill comes as a result of it, and I therefore have no animosity at anyone who refused to help us stop the witch.
I don't think I can say that I would feel the same had things gone the other way.
Now, the hand of friendship has been slapped away so much I can't blame you for considering yourself an enemy, and it's a damned shame. We all have the same basic beliefs about where this country should go.
I think we are in general agreement as to the direction this country should go, but for a time we were having a serious disagreement about where it should not go. Thankfully we were kept from that despite the willingness of some to let it happen.
-
For what it's worth, I appreciate your opening post.
We need to understand - if we're authentic Conservatives - that Trump's actions have been stellar thus far.
I don't take the media bait about the discord and betrayals to his supporters that seems to energize both the Progtoads and his little group of Never-Trumpers who have been seriously disempowered since he won the election and took office last January.
Trump is a builder and negotiator. Building a huge tower in places like Manhattan, Brooklyn and Miami requires indomitable focus and patience. He only knows opportunity and urgency and he's brought that to the White House. And, for the first time since 2009, we have a real patriot leading our government. Trump is an authentic patriot. Obama was a feckless, incompetent "man of the world" who gained influence by promising to diminish American influence.
Sorry. I really like him. He's turning stuff upside down. As needed. If he vents on Twitter, so be it. That's Donald.
Every single member at this site who finds a reason to reflexively attack POTUS needs to articulate their real opposition. As a Walker, Rubio, Cruz supporter here ... who was angered by Trump's style and discourteous nature ... I am over it.
Good grief, Hillary Clinton was the only other option. And, Trump has been a better conservative than W.
I don't get it. Why the lingering animus? He pissed me off 20 months ago but I'm not unhappy now.....!
No, actually *we* don't need to anything of the sort, because *we* have already thoroughly explained the reasons why we find particular aspects of Trump disagreeable. *We* have done that tens of thousands of times by now. Regardless of what you and the other AlwaysTrumpers would like, those reasons aren't going to change. Good for you for looking past all of Trump's flaws. Time for you to extend the same courtesy to members here who you think are flawed.
-
The problem with that is.... everything Trump is doing (undoing Obama's EOs via Trump EOs).... can be easily (and will be) undone by the next Democrat administration. It's temporary, IOW.
Much of what Obama did was blatantly illegal, and he only got away with it as a result of "black power".
No one else would dare try some of what Obama did, and so the undoing of his Executive Order works will likely remain.
-
The problem with that is.... everything Trump is doing (undoing Obama's EOs via Trump EOs).... can be easily (and will be) undone by the next Democrat administration. It's temporary, IOW.
That's true, Xena, but that's all he can do at this juncture. And, what more would you ask?
It's up to McConnell and three or four RINOs in the Senate (led by the increasingly insufferable narcissist/asshat McCain) to codify the stuff we need to have put into law.
All Trump can do is to erase the Obama executive orders - which is huge because the hip Kenyan never bothered with working through Congress - and put pressure on congress folks like Manchin and NoDak Heidi to vote for tax cuts or lose in '18.
-
Explain to me your affinity for Hillary Clinton. I'm interested.
SOSDD. *****rollingeyes*****
Trump has nominated and seated Gorsuch.
After Roberts, I will not credit that until proven.
He opened up the Keystone and Dakota pipelines. He's reinvigorated our vital coal industry.
All a bunch of EOs... And you'll be crying in your beer and tearing your clothes in anger when the next dem comes along and cancels them all. No different than Obama.
He crap-canned the onerous Paris accord. And any thoughts NAFTA, the PPP, the Iran deal and other Obama-era giveaways would stand.
No he didn't...
Just open to renegotiation. ALL of that is still on the table.
He is hated by the media. He's hated by Hollywood. He's hated by the people like Krauthammer, Kristol, Rubin, Goldberg etc. who have become rich by their opposition to a Democrat regime.
Right... and just about everyone else too. You don't get to use 'He has all the right enemies' if he doesn't also have all the right friends...
Trump has had a FAR better first nine months in office - for conservatives - that Reagan, Bush 41 or Bush 43.
I shake my head at his style, too. But he WINS. It burns deep in him, it gives him life. Winning. He's winning for us.
Oh bullcrap.
-
No, actually *we* don't need to anything of the sort, because *we* have already thoroughly explained the reasons why we find particular aspects of Trump disagreeable. *We* have done that tens of thousands of times by now. Regardless of what you and the other AlwaysTrumpers would like, those reasons aren't going to change. Good for you for looking past all of Trump's flaws. Time for you to extend the same courtesy to members here who you think are flawed.
Princess seems upset.
-
I can't remember how many people who kept telling me it wasn't a binary choice.
Yes, it really was a binary choice. You were going to get one or the other, and in no rational view could Hillary have been the better choice.
No it was not a binary choice. My choice voted for neither one... Even if it is us or them, there is still the choice not to participate. Hence *not* binary in any case.
-
Regardless of what you and the other AlwaysTrumpers would like, those reasons aren't going to change.
I believe he stated that he was a Walker, Rubio, Cruz supporter who did not like Trump. I believe that means he is not an "AlwaysTrumper". For that matter, I was a Walker, Cruz supporter, and so I wasn't an "AlwaysTrumper" either.
I think a better term to describe people like he and I is "Realist."
-
Princess seems upset.
You think little ol you can upset me? LOL
I find it interesting that it seems you're trying to goad me into being upset though. What exactly is your goal? Because you've made it very clear how you feel about Trump, so why continue on and on and on and on and on? It makes one think that your goal is to try to make people upset.... kinda like trolling.
-
I believe he stated that he was a Walker, Rubio, Cruz supporter who did not like Trump. I believe that means he is not an "AlwaysTrumper". For that matter, I was a Walker, Cruz supporter, and so I wasn't an "AlwaysTrumper" either.
I think a better term to describe people like he and I is "Realist."
Whatever makes you feel good.
-
Okay, Invar.
You're a eunuch. Sorry, but you are.
Ask me if I care what you Populist Nationalists or the liberal Left within the Republican Party thinks.
All I know from your fellows is that I am to be counted as 'the enemy' because of my refusal to support your prince.
Okay and Amen. I'm the enemy. I accept it.
Go, have fun fighting "the Left" with whatever political messiahs you want to march behind.
I have other plans.
They do not include you.
Trump is doing stuff every single day. He is systematically unraveling every Obama executive order fiat. He's on the right path for most everything in my opinion. I watch what he DOES, not what he tweets.
Trump is as irrelevant and immaterial to me as Obama was.
In fact, I view him in almost the exact same light and with almost the same amount of disdain.
-
SOSDD. *****rollingeyes*****
After Roberts, I will not credit that until proven.
All a bunch of EOs... And you'll be crying in your beer and tearing your clothes in anger when the next dem comes along and cancels them all. No different than Obama.
No he didn't...
Just open to renegotiation. ALL of that is still on the table.
Right... and just about everyone else too. You don't get to use 'He has all the right enemies' if he doesn't also have all the right friends...
Oh bullcrap.
You apparently don't understand the meaning of "renegotiate". That means .... done until further notice.
Your anger is palatable. I don't get it. Why do you hate Trump? He's working hand in hand with Cruz (my favorite) on many of Ted's priorities.
He's a bully and often a Twitteroaf. But, he's a SERIOUS man who has SERIOUS objectives to right the American ship and culture and start making the jerks internationally respect and fear us again. After the empty-suit "Apologist in Chief" reign of retreat.
Do you think guys like Mattis, Tillerson and Kelly would still be in any regime that wasn't on target or heading there?
Gimme a break already. Again, I don't get folks like you. Trump insulted the guys we liked in the GOP Primary? Yeah, he did. But, it's better to have Don Rickles on your side than against you. RIP
-
What's humorous here, is that you think those quotes support your argument...in actuality, they simply point out a lack of self awareness and an inability to understand the bible itself. But please, post more such quotes to undermine your own argument...however nebulous and poorly thought out that argument may be.
Coming from you, that was an incredible compliment.
Thank you.
-
After Roberts, I will not credit that until proven.
To be fair, you can't fault Bush for what Roberts did. None of us saw that coming. You can fault a man for making a mistake if there was some information available to reveal that it could have been foreseen.
All a bunch of EOs... And you'll be crying in your beer and tearing your clothes in anger when the next dem comes along and cancels them all. No different than Obama.
I doubt any subsequent Democrat will have the stupidity or the gall to do what Obama did. Obama got away with it because he was black. Had he been a white guy who tried some of the stuff he did, he would have been toast.
The media and the nation made allowances for him because of the "soft bigotry of low expectations." They knew he was ignorant and incompetent, but they consciously refused to notice it.
Trump can undo much of Obama's idiocy, and it is very unlikely that another Democrat President can get away with putting that sh*t back.
-
The problem with that is.... everything Trump is doing (undoing Obama's EOs via Trump EOs).... can be easily (and will be) undone by the next Democrat administration. It's temporary, IOW.
Some perhaps but most no! For example, it will be DAMNED hard for them to re-establish those illegal payments to insurance companies.
-
No it was not a binary choice. My choice voted for neither one... Even if it is us or them, there is still the choice not to participate. Hence *not* binary in any case.
One of the two viable candidates won. We weren't going to have a President "none of the above."
That wasn't going to happen.
-
Maybe someone can help me here. I am looking at the dates on the posts on this thread and they seem to indicate that they are from today, yet the topic of argument is clearly that of one year ago today. Very strange.
From where I am sitting those that like Donny should be satisfied and those who don't are shit out of luck for the next 7 years. No amount of arguing is going to change that shit.
-
You apparently don't understand the meaning of "renegotiate". That means .... done until further notice.
Your anger is palatable. I don't get it. Why do you hate Trump? He's working hand in hand with Cruz (my favorite) on many of Ted's priorities.
He's a bully and often a Twitteroaf. But, he's a SERIOUS man who has SERIOUS objectives to right the American ship and culture and start making the jerks internationally respect and fear us again. After the empty-suit "Apologist in Chief" reign of retreat.
Do you think guys like Mattis, Tillerson and Kelly would still be in any regime that wasn't on target or heading there?
Gimme a break already. Again, I don't get folks like you. Trump insulted the guys we liked in the GOP Primary? Yeah, he did. But, it's better to have Don Rickles on your side than against you. RIP
I think @roamer_1 is a decent enough guy but his Trump hate does not allow him to see beyond any issue. He is totally obsessed with Trump hate and cannot be reasoned with.
I know. I've tried.
-
Maybe someone can help me here. I am looking at the dates on the posts on this thread and they seem to indicate that they are from today, yet the topic of argument is clearly that of one year ago today. Very strange.
From where I am sitting those that like Donny should be satisfied and those who don't are shit out of luck for the next 7 years. No amount of arguing is going to change that shit.
You have got to be kidding !! I know you don't drink this early, so what's the deal.
Are you trying to tell me that all the people who trash Trump on TBR are out of luck ... that their comments cannot remove him from the presidency???
Wow, who knew. What a lot of time has been wasted then.
-
Some perhaps but most no! For example, it will be DAMNED hard for them to re-establish those illegal payments to insurance companies.
Exactly. Only Obama could have gotten away with something that blatantly wrong.
-
No, actually *we* don't need to anything of the sort, because *we* have already thoroughly explained the reasons why we find particular aspects of Trump disagreeable. *We* have done that tens of thousands of times by now. Regardless of what you and the other AlwaysTrumpers would like, those reasons aren't going to change. Good for you for looking past all of Trump's flaws. Time for you to extend the same courtesy to members here who you think are flawed.
Considering I was a member here several years before you, I feel okay to use the collective "we".
It reminds me of the old FR. When I was losing a debate against Sabertooth or whomever, I'd go "Did you see my sign-up date". lol
-
Whatever makes you feel good.
Well I do like arguing, so I didn't really expect a meek capitulation. Ah well. :)
-
You have got to be kidding !! I know you don't drink this early, so what's the deal.
Are you trying to tell me that all the people who trash Trump on TBR are out of luck ... that their comments cannot remove him from the presidency???
Wow, who knew. What a lot of time has been wasted then.
That pretty well sums it up.
-
Whatever makes you feel good.
Would you like a list of things that make me feel good? It's X rated.
-
One of the two viable candidates won. We weren't going to have a President "none of the above."
That wasn't going to happen.
This site hosts a disproportionately large contingent, of "true conservatives," that are apparently incapable of understanding "viable candidate," logic, the binary nature of most election etc.
I have stated for years, that some "true conservatives," are both math and logic challenged.
That is my story, and I'm sticking with it.
-
Maybe someone can help me here. I am looking at the dates on the posts on this thread and they seem to indicate that they are from today, yet the topic of argument is clearly that of one year ago today. Very strange.
From where I am sitting those that like Donny should be satisfied and those who don't are shit out of luck for the next 7 years. No amount of arguing is going to change that shit.
"All the same people having all the same discussion. It's like they cloned some party in 1983 and kept spinning it out again and again and again."
-
Would you like a list of things that make me feel good? It's X rated.
Would I?!
-
You apparently don't understand the meaning of "renegotiate". That means .... done until further notice.
You apparently don't understand that 'renegotiate' means it's still on the table.
Your anger is palatable.
I believe you meant to say 'palpable'.
I don't get it. Why do you hate Trump?
How is it that you guys always throw the 'hater' card. Next will be 'virtue signalling'. You sound like a bunch of liberal asshats.
I don't hate him, or anyone else... Though I am kinda close with my ex-wife... Working on that.
He's working hand in hand with Cruz (my favorite) on many of Ted's priorities.
When it suits him, and I don't care.
He's a bully and often a Twitteroaf. But, he's a SERIOUS man who has SERIOUS objectives to right the American ship and culture and start making the jerks internationally respect and fear us again. After the empty-suit "Apologist in Chief" reign of retreat.
He's a boorish oaf and a perpetual liar. I don't need to know any more.
Do you think guys like Mattis, Tillerson and Kelly would still be in any regime that wasn't on target or heading there?
Better check again tomorrow... With the revolving door and all...
Gimme a break already. Again, I don't get folks like you. Trump insulted the guys we liked in the GOP Primary? Yeah, he did. But, it's better to have Don Rickles on your side than against you. RIP
The ONLY reflex wrt how Cruz was treated in the primary is to confirm the scurrilous character of Tump. 'Wining' by slandering your opponent tells me EXACTLY what he's worth., and how much I can trust him - Which is not at all.
Cruz is a big boy. He can handle himself.
-
Considering I was a member here several years before you, I feel okay to use the collective "we".
It reminds me of the old FR. When I was losing a debate against Sabertooth or whomever, I'd go "Did you see my sign-up date". lol
I seriously have not a clue what this means.
-
That pretty well sums it up.
So, what do we do now?
-
Maybe someone can help me here. I am looking at the dates on the posts on this thread and they seem to indicate that they are from today, yet the topic of argument is clearly that of one year ago today. Very strange.
I'm with you on this @Frank Cannon! Trump, warts and all, IS the president now regardless of who likes or dislikes the fact and re fighting last years battles is insane!
-
So, what do we do now?
My vote is for everyone to shut the hell up.
-
I'm with you on this @Frank Cannon! Trump, warts and all, IS the president now regardless of who likes or dislikes the fact and re fighting last years battles is insane!
The best shot at victory on NeverTrump island is to work like hell and get a bunch of Trump hating candidates on the congressional ballot and make sure they win seats, but looking around all the NT Pols like Charlie Dent are slinking away to "spend more time with their families" and the RINO's NT's who dislike Donny seem to be jumping on board the Trump Train after Roy Moore handed them their asses.
-
I seriously have not a clue what this means.
On TOS a few of us were quite proud of our sign-up dates. I personally was a charter member and it was a fabulous site for many, many years.
It started with a link on Drudge to Whitewater and a few of us Clinton haters went there and the day it officially became Free Republic, I signed up.
It started going really downhill in 2012 during those primaries and that was when Jim R. started allowing vicious verbal abuse. That's one reason I love the MOds here. They put up with a lot but they know when to draw the line.
I left for 4 years after that primary but returned during this one until I was thrown out for preferring Ted Cruz to Trump.
-
I think @roamer_1 is a decent enough guy but his Trump hate does not allow him to see beyond any issue. He is totally obsessed with Trump hate and cannot be reasoned with.
I know. I've tried.
If you're a Cruz supporter that is still upset over Trump's disrespect of him, his wife and father? I understand that.
But Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt human being on Earth. Her husband would rate, but he's not smart enough. America, under a President Clinton, would not exist as we know it. She would have destroyed the last enabling, historic American institutions that keep us free and prosperous.
I was a Trump supporter and voter in Oct/Nov 2016. Every month, I become a more supportive fan. He is the ONLY guy who could ever break this elitist cabal that has run everything from Katrina to when the Kenyan skulked away. He makes guys like Krauthammer and Kristol expose themselves.
He's like punk rock in 1978 or the "Gunge" Seattle reponse to the corporate music in the late 80s.
I like him a lot. He's a loose cannon, but his heart and mind is in the right place and he has upended the status quo. Which was poisoning us.
I'm very happy with him. More than I ever imagined.
-
My vote is for everyone to shut the hell up.
What if I get belligerent about it and refuse to? Would you put me in my place?
-
To be fair, you can't fault Bush for what Roberts did. None of us saw that coming. You can fault a man for making a mistake if there was some information available to reveal that it could have been foreseen.
I faulted no one... But I am certainly not giving credit either. As I have said before, I will wait to hear the voice of Scalia coming from the bench before any credit is given at all. We have not done well with SCOTUS picks.
Trump can undo much of Obama's idiocy, and it is very unlikely that another Democrat President can get away with putting that sh*t back.
HAHAHAHA! That's funny. Fauxahontas gets in there, the press will be every bit four square behind anything she does, just like Obama. Or virtually any other liberal.
-
One of the two viable candidates won. We weren't going to have a President "none of the above."
Don;t care. I chose to deny either one coattails or a mandate. You can thank me later.
-
Don;t care. I chose to deny either one coattails or a mandate. You can thank me later.
Thank you for what? Didn't you read Frank's post. You're wasting your time.
-
You apparently don't understand that 'renegotiate' means it's still on the table.
I believe you meant to say 'palpable'.
How is it that you guys always throw the 'hater' card. Next will be 'virtue signalling'. You sound like a bunch of liberal asshats.
I don't hate him, or anyone else... Though I am kinda close with my ex-wife... Working on that.
When it suits him, and I don't care.
He's a boorish oaf and a perpetual liar. I don't need to know any more.
Better check again tomorrow... With the revolving door and all...
The ONLY reflex wrt how Cruz was treated in the primary is to confirm the scurrilous character of Tump. 'Wining' by slandering your opponent tells me EXACTLY what he's worth., and how much I can trust him - Which is not at all.
Cruz is a big boy. He can handle himself.
LOL. Re-negotiate MEANS re-negotiate. We're negotiating ... again. That means, to anyone who is involved with deals, that the original agreement is no longer en force.
The rest of your stuff is boring.
By the way, that "sentence by sentence" rebuttal is really, really obnoxious. You intentionally try to scrub any greater flow and context and that's lame and cowardly. It's been a pet peeve of mine forever.
And, you aren't very good at it.
-
On TOS a few of us were quite proud of our sign-up dates. I personally was a charter member and it was a fabulous site for many, many years.
It started with a link on Drudge to Whitewater and a few of us Clinton haters went there and the day it officially became Free Republic, I signed up.
It started going really downhill in 2012 during those primaries and that was when Jim R. started allowing vicious verbal abuse. That's one reason I love the MOds here. They put up with a lot but they know when to draw the line.
I left for 4 years after that primary but returned during this one until I was thrown out for preferring Ted Cruz to Trump.
I quietly left during that primary and very loudly got permanently banned during this one.
-
I faulted no one... But I am certainly not giving credit either. As I have said before, I will wait to hear the voice of Scalia coming from the bench before any credit is given at all. We have not done well with SCOTUS picks.
HAHAHAHA! That's funny. Fauxahontas gets in there, the press will be every bit four square behind anything she does, just like Obama. Or virtually any other liberal.
Sorry, but that is another thing you are wrong about.
Obama was unique. He was the great Black hope. He was worshipped by the minority community who were too dumb to notice that he never did a dam thing for them unless you count the beer summit.
And the rest of the liberals didn't dare go against him because democrats cannot win without the minority vote and they know it.
-
What if I get belligerent about it and refuse to? Would you put me in my place?
Oh, you'd like that. Too much.
-
I quietly left during that primary and very loudly got permanently banned during this one.
People were almost as bad over there during the 2012 primaries ... maybe worse. I was for Rick Perry. I wasn't kicked off but I left on my own because of abuse.
-
People were almost as bad over there during the 2012 primaries ... maybe worse. I was for Rick Perry. I wasn't kicked off but I left on my own because of abuse.
I finally called Jim an SOB to his face in public leving him no choice but to ban me. You would have to know a lot more history than you do to fully understand why that happened.
-
LOL. Re-negotiate MEANS re-negotiate. We're negotiating ... again. That means, to anyone who is involved with deals, that the original agreement is no longer en force.
The rest of your stuff is boring.
By the way, that "sentence by sentence" rebuttal is really, really obnoxious. You intentionally try to scrub any greater flow and context and that's really lame and cowardly. It's been a pet peeve of mine forever.
And, you aren't very good at it.
meh.
Ignore the fact that he won by slander. Ignore the fact that he lies perpetually.
I will not. I will have nothing to do with him.
Not my circus, not my monkey.
-
I finally called Jim an SOB to his face in public leving him no choice but to ban me. You would have to know a lot more history than you do to fully understand why that happened.
Love to know the Real Story.
-
Sorry, but that is another thing you are wrong about.
Obama was unique. He was the great Black hope.
Riiiiight. And the first WOMAN president won't have exactly the same leeway, for exactly the same reasons?
You are dreaming.
-
meh.
Ignore the fact that he won by slander. Ignore the fact that he lies perpetually.
I will not. I will have nothing to do with him.
Not my circus, not my monkey.
But ... no matter what you say about him here, it has no effect on reality.
So, you're kinda baying at the moon.
But if that rocks your boat ..
-
Riiiiight. And the first WOMAN president won't have exactly the same leeway, for exactly the same reasons?
You are dreaming.
Not at all. Women hate women. I know I do.
-
Love to know the Real Story.
Maybe someday. But I doubt it. There are others here that know and I have no objection to their filling you in if they so choose.
-
Can this thread reach 500 posts, with NTers "virtue signaling" their same olde tired BS ??
Gee I wonder if this thread can get locked because the Orange Hoarde insults people who don't bow and scrape at Donny's feet like they do.
-
Some of us have been doing what they can to combat the left while Trump was still bashing Reagan.
-
meh.
Ignore the fact that he won by slander. Ignore the fact that he lies perpetually.
I will not. I will have nothing to do with him.
Not my circus, not my monkey.
Well, it's readily apparent that you are smarter than the 63 million voters - in 2500 counties and 35 or more states - who voted for him.
Nah.
I didn't think I'd like him this much a year ago. He's great. Sorry. Enjoy your rage.
-
But ... no matter what you say about him here, it has no effect on reality.
Never said it did. Except in the reality that I do not associate with known liars and slanderers.
I will never support a man like that.
Truth will out, as will character.
-
Gee I wonder if this thread can get locked because the Orange Hoarde insults people who don't bow and scrape at Donny's feet like they do.
Put your big-boy pants on.
You have NO STANDING in a putative Conservative message board to be actively opposed to Donald Trump's agenda or policies.
None.
A year ago? Sure! Two years ago? I was here bashing him because he was a New York liberal who was tearing down the GOP.
I was wrong. I admit it. Why don't you?
-
Not at all. Women hate women. I know I do.
Perhaps that's why you are so quick to accuse me of hate. Simple projection.
-
Well, it's readily apparent that you are smarter than the 63 million voters - in 2500 counties and 35 or more states - who voted for him.
Nah.
I didn't think I'd like him this much a year ago. He's great. Sorry. Enjoy your rage.
If you read my post about getting kicked off of TOS, you know that I was a strong Cruz supporter and still am.
But, yeah, people are jeered at here now for saying Trump is so much better than Hillary would have been, but those people have no way of actually slapping me, so I'll say it again.
I can't go as far in Trump love as you do, but I do think he's done much better than I expected and I support him until and unless he does something I can't forgive. That has not happened yet.
-
Well, it's readily apparent that you are smarter than the 63 million voters - in 2500 counties and 35 or more states - who voted for him.
Nah.
I didn't think I'd like him this much a year ago. He's great. Sorry. Enjoy your rage.
Knock yourself out.
-
Knock yourself out.
C'mon, @roamer_1
You can't do better than 'knock yourself out?'
Maybe this thread needs closing until people regroup and find some words.
-
You have NO STANDING in a putative Conservative message board to be actively opposed to Donald Trump's agenda or policies.
The hell you say.
I see that differently.
And unless you can kick me off of here, YOU have no standing to tell me what to do.
-
Gee I wonder if this thread can get locked because the Orange Hoarde insults people who don't bow and scrape at Donny's feet like they do.
Do I have to explain to you again??? @txradioguy
You are constantly insulting people. See "orange Hoarde" above.
And yet you accuse people of insulting you.
If you want people to be nice, you should try doing it yourself.
-
Put your big-boy pants on.
You have NO STANDING in a putative Conservative message board to be actively opposed to Donald Trump's agenda or policies.
Oh yeah? Just watch us.
We will be openly and actively opposed to Trump's Liberal Asshatdom and Twitterrages and policies detrimental to core Conservative principles on THIS message board as often as we please.
Not a DAMN THING you or anyone else can do about it.
Until such time as the owner decides this is a Pro-Trump-only message board like TOS and the majority of what used to be the Conservative forumsphere out there.
You have no say or standing in that fact unless you want to buy out the owner and change the policy yourself.
-
What if I get belligerent about it and refuse to? Would you put me in my place?
Yes, no matter how much you'd enjoy it.
-
On TOS a few of us were quite proud of our sign-up dates. I personally was a charter member and it was a fabulous site for many, many years.
It started with a link on Drudge to Whitewater and a few of us Clinton haters went there and the day it officially became Free Republic, I signed up.
It started going really downhill in 2012 during those primaries and that was when Jim R. started allowing vicious verbal abuse. That's one reason I love the MOds here. They put up with a lot but they know when to draw the line.
I left for 4 years after that primary but returned during this one until I was thrown out for preferring Ted Cruz to Trump.
I signed up in 2001, so I'm fairly aware of the history. I just have no clue why it's being brought up or what it has to do with me.
Like I said before, I think the troll is trolling.
-
Maybe this thread needs closing until people regroup and find some words.
Let's stop the personal insults or I will lock this thread.
TBR is a political CONSERVATIVE forum open to all POV and does not support/endorse any one candidate but members are allowed to share their opinions without insulting another member.
-
Let's stop the personal insults or I will lock this thread.
Can I do impersonal insults?
-
Do I have to explain to you again??? @txradioguy
You are constantly insulting people. See "orange Hoarde" above.
And yet you accuse people of insulting you.
If you want people to be nice, you should try doing it yourself.
And I guess the person I was responding to and their incessant and demeaning use of NT to describe people who don't worship Trump like he does is what to you...a compliment?
And you have no room to talk on here about insults MJ. You can be as nasty as anyone on here you chastise.
-
Do I have to explain to you again??? @txradioguy
You are constantly insulting people. See "orange Hoarde" above.
And yet you accuse people of insulting you.
If you want people to be nice, you should try doing it yourself.
Physician heal thyself.
I'll tell ya, it takes a certain kind of someone to show up on this thread again, accusing people of *anything* after your particular variety of mental gymnastics was exposed.
-
I'm starting to get bored....
-
Can I do impersonal insults?
You could insult people but substitute my name in for whoever you were really talking about.
-
Put your big-boy pants on.
You have NO STANDING in a putative Conservative message board to be actively opposed to Donald Trump's agenda or policies.
None.
Wanna bet? Hide and watch Arnie. I'll oppose any of his policies that aren't Conservative or are the result of deal making with the hard core left.
You have no standing to chastise anyone on here still willing to stand up for Reagan style Conservatism.
A year ago? Sure! Two years ago? I was here bashing him because he was a New York liberal who was tearing down the GOP.
I was wrong. I admit it. Why don't you?
Because he hasn't changed. He's still tearing down the GOP.
-
I'm starting to get bored....
Are you drinking on duty again? Do we need to have Mod8 relieve you from duty...again? :beer:
-
Can I do impersonal insults?
A little levity is always welcomed...I miss your buddy Wingnut... 8888crybaby
-
Wanna bet? Hide and watch Arnie. I'll oppose any of his policies that aren't Conservative or are the result of deal making with the hard core left.
You have no standing to chastise anyone on here still willing to stand up for Reagan style Conservatism.
Because he hasn't changed. He's still tearing down the GOP.
No he isn't! They did that to themselves and Trump had no hand in it!
-
You could insult people but substitute my name in for whoever you were really talking about.
Well I have had about enough of RoosGirl's GD bullshit. If I have to hear another go nowhere rant from RoosGirl about (Insert inane NT/AT topic here) I'm going to lose my shit. Just STFU!
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/ee/08/35/ee0835b74546e3505f4646a5d205457c--funny-sassy-quotes-vintage-funny-quotes.jpg)
-
A little levity is always welcomed...I miss your buddy Wingnut... 8888crybaby
He started to talk when he was drunk about some of my hobbies. I had to have him "taken care of".
-
A little levity is always welcomed...I miss your buddy Wingnut... 8888crybaby
Me too. Write him and tell him so.
-
Well I have had about enough of RoosGirl's GD bullshit. If I have to hear another go nowhere rant from RoosGirl about (Insert inane NT/AT topic here) I'm going to lose my shit. Just STFU!
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/ee/08/35/ee0835b74546e3505f4646a5d205457c--funny-sassy-quotes-vintage-funny-quotes.jpg)
Laaaaaaame
Not, just lame, but:
(http://www.dumpaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/man-wearing-gold-pants.jpg)
-
Me too. Write him and tell him so.
I have several times..he promises to come back..he needs a break
-
Can I do impersonal insults?
Personally I do not think anyone can do personal or impersonal insults as personably and impersonably as you can most likely personally make them.
A testament to your personality notwithstanding your personable and impersonal nature.
Perhaps we should talk about the role duality plays in your presence of personality here.
Could be both fun and disturbing at the same time.
-
No he isn't! They did that to themselves and Trump had no hand in it!
Yeah they had a gun to his head to make him cut deals with Schumer and Pelosi.
It was the GOP forcing Trump to pitch single payer during the primaries.
And lie about building a wall. And kicking the dreamers out of the country.
Trumps real beliefs are well known and documented no matter how much his blind faithful try to cover them up.
He's not Conservative...and he's not a Republican. And there are people on TBR that have admitted that they don't care.
-
No he isn't! They did that to themselves and Trump had no hand in it!
I have to agree...in fact that is how he[Trump} got elected...drain the swamp and all that.
-
I have to agree...in fact that is how he[Trump} got elected...drain the swamp and all that.
Kinda hard to drain the swamp when you keep feeding the alligators.
-
Personally I do not think anyone can do personal or impersonal insults as personably and impersonably as you can most likely personally make them.
A testament to your personality notwithstanding your personable and impersonal nature.
Perhaps we should talk about the role duality plays in your presence of personality here.
Could be both fun and disturbing at the same time.
lol I like that...
-
(sigh)
Does it always fall to me? Knock this crap off. Mod 1 is bored because there's no Scotch, and the rest are out for a Fajita party because somebody scored a hundred pounds of the stuff.
I see a lock in the immediate future if somebody doesn't calm the waters.
-
I have several times..he promises to come back..he needs a break
Well, I know he had to have some time to shovel the mud outta his hut, and he lost a flip flop during the hurricane and had to go get a job to buy a new pair... But I think he's slackin now.
-
I don't even want to know what "the stuff" they scored is.
-
Well, I know he had to have some time to shovel the mud outta his hut, and he lost a flip flop during the hurricane and had to go get a job to buy a new pair... But I think he's slackin now.
Maybe I will email him again soon...you are right no more excuses.
-
(sigh)
Does it always fall to me? Knock this crap off. Mod 1 is bored because there's no Scotch, and the rest are out for a Fajita party because somebody scored a hundred pounds of the stuff.
I see a lock in the immediate future if somebody doesn't calm the waters.
I don't do well when threatened... My nervous flatulence will kick in...
Fair warning. :whistle:
-
I don't do well when threatened... My nervous flatulence will kick in...
Fair warning. :whistle:
:smokin: need a light?
-
This thread is doing nothing but giving me a lust to read this book (the author is a conservative himself---
which I already planned to read, but now I simply must have it:
(https://bitebackpub.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/book/image/3720/cover_9781785902833.jpg)
Though I have to share one amusing point about it that convinces me that maybe nobody
should be allowed to review for Amazon unless they first pass a literacy test: namely,
one of the reader reviews of Mr. Sykes's book:
He is likely one of the two conservatives I really respect - and like.
I can't think of who the other one is at this moment. I look forward to reading
his book. Oh yes. George F. Will - I truly respect and admire him and his use
of language. If he wrote a book, I'd buy it too!
That about a man who has written fourteen books, the most important
of which---as any right-thinking person with right priorities must know---are . . .
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51nvFFBpFFL._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) (https://i3.bookpage.com/books/images/8f6898118a3e35d76cc2f0e095ef0743/medium.jpg) (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51NNDoDCVAL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
-
This thread went all to hell, and there's nothing but fighting now. We can do better. I will come in later and break it loose, but until something in the air improves this sucker is LOCKED.
-
OK, let's give it another go. Please let's do it without all the personal attacks, OK?
-
I signed up in 2001, so I'm fairly aware of the history. I just have no clue why it's being brought up or what it has to do with me.
Like I said before, I think the troll is trolling.
Oh, I thought you just didn't know. Sorry.
-
My vote is for everyone to shut the hell up.
Wouldn't be much of a discussion if we all did that.
Reminds me of this:
Gale: All right, ya hayseeds, it's a stick-up. Everybody freeze. Everybody down on the ground.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/p1S8MVNyhGA/hqdefault.jpg)
(http://www.okmoviequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/1-Raising-Arizona-quotes.gif)
(https://politicalfilm.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/screenshot-med-33.jpg)
Gale: Shut up!
Feisty Hayseed: Okay then.
Gale: Everybody down on the ground!
Evelle: Y'all can just forget that part about freezin' now.
Gale: Better still to get down there.
Evelle: Yeah, y'all hear that, don't ya?
[Everybody lays down. Gale looks at the now-empty teller windows]
Gale: Shit! Where'd all the tellers go?
Teller's voices: We're down here, sir.
Evelle: They're on the floor as you commanded, Gale.
-
First of all, setting aside unwise campaign rhetoric, we need all conservatives back in this struggle. That includes NTrs and everyone else of good conscience.
Would President Hillary Clinton have;
1. Put Justice Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
2. Ended DACA and the used it as a bargaining chip for better Border enforcement and a wall.
3. Exited the Paris Agreement.
4. Brought down NAFTA and reset for a new negotiation across the board.it.
5. Ended Obamacare insurance subsidies of over 7 billion dollars.
6. Deeply cut government regulation.
7. Nominated large numbers of Conservative justices to the Federal courts.
8. Decertified the Iran deal.
9. Stood up to NFL players disrespecting the anthem, flag and our national identity.
10. Proposed deep cuts in Corporate tax rates across the board.
11. Proposed deep cuts in taxes for the middle class.
12. Waged war against grotesque liberal media bias.
13. Imposed immigration limits on terror risk nations and fought for them in the courts.
14. Set the Justice Department and the admin to oppose "Sanctuary" cities.
15. Allowed private companies/insurers to NOT provide abortion coverage against their own moral views.
16. Opposed hysterical calls for strong new gun control legislation following the Vegas shooting.
17. Advocated for increased defense spending and revitalization in particular of our decaying naval forces.
18. Supported police and law enforcement at every turn against groups like ANTIFA and BLM.
19. Called consistently for protection of the unborn, and supporting a strict post 20 week ban on abortions.
20. Fought for new legislation, even if congress failed in its part, to repeal Obamacare.
This is just a partial list, but it should make clear to those who like to claim the President is a liberal just like Clinton and/or the Dems in general...and that it matters not between he and Hillary who won the White House. Well, guess what? It matters...and it matters in a YUGE way. Those of us who have supported Trump see all of his flaws, no less than those who consider themselves NT's, but we also see the vast and Conservatively positive differences between himself and Clinton. And while his conservatism may not be as pure as some like, nor his history as devoid of moderate to left associations whilst he was a businessman, this list demonstrates just how strongly he is and has been fighting for conservatism.
I post this for one reason, and one reason only...that those of you who are conservatives but not supporters of the President....and yes, I and nearly all Trump supporters respect your position...will now come around and join with us in what is quickly becoming an existential cultural and ideological struggle for the future of this nation. You are needed, just as we pro Trump folks will be needed down the road when a President Pence or President Cruz are fighting the radical Left. No one asks that anyone set aside their views or halt all critiques of policies and behaviors you disagree with...just that you let the bigger picture of what we face from the Left persuade you get back into the fight FOR an imperfect Republican President.
I didn't read the other posts, but in any event, this is a great list. I agree with ya.
The Cruz backers, the Rubio backers, etc...I mean it's been almost a year now past the 2016 election. We really do need to end the bickering and focus on the job that needs to be done. And part of that focus has to be to never again allow a malignancy like Barack Hussein Obama to occupy the White House.
Any calls for a conservative third party would doom us in 2020 and beyond. Do we want Trump in 2020 to be president or a leftist dope such as Elizabeth Warren. The right choice is obvious, so let's support Trump, sure keep his feet to the fire when necessary, but overall let's think Republican Party and work to make it stronger.
-
I know. Third party dreamers really make me sad. Because it would doom the Republican Party and give power to the democrats.
Do I have to mention D.B. H. Ross Perot? He had a fervent following, kinda Trump like. And he gave us 8 years of Clinton.
I think the country is pretty conservative and pretty fed up with moderate Congress Critters who block all attempts at reform.
It may take a couple of elections and, dare I say, a few people aging out, but I think we can get a good congress if we put the effort into that that people want to put into getting rid of Trump.
-
Any calls for a conservative third party would doom us in 2020 and beyond.
Then be doomed.
Do we want Trump in 2020 to be president
NOPE.
or a leftist dope such as Elizabeth Warren.
NOPE.
The right choice is obvious, so let's support Trump
That isn't the right choice.
-
Any calls for a conservative third party would doom us in 2020 and beyond.
Too damn bad. The GOP made their bed with the liberal Left, I will NEVER again vote for anyone in that party.
If they are Conservative, they need to get out of the Republican party if they want votes from Conservatives. This is my crusade - to get as many Conservatives OUT of the Republican party and into a Third Party outside of the corrupted and irredeemable parties residing at Mordor on the Potomac.
Do we want Trump in 2020 to be president or a leftist dope such as Elizabeth Warren.
Makes no difference to me. Both of them are urban Liberals and I can care less which of them rules from the throne in DC.
The right choice is obvious, so let's support Trump, sure keep his feet to the fire when necessary, but overall let's think Republican Party and work to make it stronger.
Nope. Your party is dead and nothing more than another liberal Statist party pretending to be Conservative.
Some of us former Elephants have LONG memories about the rules changes at the conventions and the elimination of the grassroots having influence in your party and we are DONE being battered housewives to an adulterous and malignant Establishment that goes to war on us each every time we attempt to hold their feet to the fire.
It's time to start over with a new party not corrupted by the Oligarchy in D.C.
I know. Third party dreamers really make me sad. Because it would doom the Republican Party and give power to the democrats.
Irrelevant. Both parties are one and the same, and given what the Republican leadership has done to the TEA Party - I am in favor of lending a hand to doom it to Whig-status immediately.
-
I know. Third party dreamers really make me sad. Because it would doom the Republican Party and give power to the democrats.
Do I have to mention D.B. H. Ross Perot? He had a fervent following, kinda Trump like. And he gave us 8 years of Clinton.
I think the country is pretty conservative and pretty fed up with moderate Congress Critters who block all attempts at reform.
It may take a couple of elections and, dare I say, a few people aging out, but I think we can get a good congress if we put the effort into that that people want to put into getting rid of Trump.
If Perot doesn't run, Bush 1 beats Bill Clinton handily...and the best players today on the game show Jeopardy might not know the first name of Bill Clinton's wife.
-
If Perot doesn't run, Bush 1 beats Bill Clinton handily...and the best players today on the game show Jeopardy might not know the first name of Bill Clinton's wife.
READ MY LIPS.
-
If Perot doesn't run, Bush 1 beats Bill Clinton handily...and the best players today on the game show Jeopardy might not know the first name of Bill Clinton's wife.
Perot's supporters were heavily on the Libertarian side. Had Perot not been in the race, or had there been a run off (Something I believe should happen every time a President gets less than 50% of the vote) Bush would have won, and much bad in the world would have been averted.
-
READ MY LIPS.
EXACTLY right!
-
READ MY LIPS.
That's what put him within striking distance, but without Perot teaming up with Bill Clinton to attack him, he would have survived it. Also without the media waging their propaganda war on the economy, Bush would have won.
-
Too damn bad. The GOP made their bed with the liberal Left, I will NEVER again vote for anyone in that party.
If they are Conservative, they need to get out of the Republican party if they want votes from Conservatives. This is my crusade - to get as many Conservatives OUT of the Republican party and into a Third Party outside of the corrupted and irredeemable parties residing at Mordor on the Potomac.
Makes no difference to me. Both of them are urban Liberals and I can care less which of them rules from the throne in DC.
Nope. Your party is dead and nothing more than another liberal Statist party pretending to be Conservative.
Some of us former Elephants have LONG memories about the rules changes at the conventions and the elimination of the grassroots having influence in your party and we are DONE being battered housewives to an adulterous and malignant Establishment that goes to war on us each every time we attempt to hold their feet to the fire.
It's time to start over with a new party not corrupted by the Oligarchy in D.C.
Irrelevant. Both parties are one and the same, and given what the Republican leadership has done to the TEA Party - I am in favor of lending a hand to doom it to Whig-status immediately.
What you are striving for would simply hand governance of the nation to the Democratic party in perpetuity. So in a way, you are working VERY hard to ensure the Democrats take over this nation and...eventually...turn it into a version of the old USSR. Great plan.
And no, while its an easy and childish answer to proclaim so, the parties are very much NOT the same. They may both be inadequate and power hungry...as is the nature of any and all political parties, including 3rd parties...but issue by issue they are deeply in opposition, in some cases 180 degrees apart. Pretending they are the same...so one can act a fantasy of pure conservatism in a 3rd party...is quite possibly the single dumbest plan in the history of modern political thought. Its a guarantee of losing...permanently...the GOP and your little 3rd party would become irrelevant and conservatism as a viable political force would be lost in this nation. Why would anyone claiming to be a conservative wish for such a thing?
-
That's what put him within striking distance, but without Perot teaming up with Bill Clinton to attack him, he would have survived it. Also without the media waging their propaganda war on the economy, Bush would have won.
I'm not sure about that. The campaign was notoriously bad and I know that because I was there.
-
I'm not sure about that. The campaign was notoriously bad and I know that because I was there.
Getting attacked from two sides, three if you count the media, can do that to you.
I too was part of my state's campaign to elect Bush. It galled me greatly because I really wanted him out, but once I found out what a piece of sh*t Bill Clinton was, I had to go back to Bush.
I was furious that I was putting up signs and canvassing literature for that Naive @$$hole.
-
READ MY LIPS.
Of course that promise in hindsight was a mistake. And the Democratic Party beat it to death.
Dan Quayle didn't help Bush either, and I like Quayle and his views, but he should have remained a senator.
All that being said, it was Perot who cost Bush 1 his second term.
-
This thread went all to hell, and there's nothing but fighting now. We can do better. I will come in later and break it loose, but until something in the air improves this sucker is LOCKED.
Can you let me know when you "Unlock this sucker"? I have a whole lot more to say on this thread about minivans. I forgot to cover Chrysler products on the last thread I hijacked....
(https://s.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/916x515/quality/95/http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/05/dude-in-back-1280.jpg)
-
Of course that promise in hindsight was a mistake. And the Democratic Party beat it to death.
No, the promise wasn't the problem. Breaking the promise was the problem.
All that being said, it was Perot who cost Bush 1 his second term.
Good. I am glad he lost, regardless. There has to be a consequence - something party-line lesser evil wonks don't seem to understand.
These 'lesser evil' arguments are old saw. All y'all need some new shtick.
-
Gee I wonder if this thread can get locked because the Orange Hoarde insults people who don't bow and scrape at Donny's feet like they do.
You replied to my two point remark,
--500+ posts
--Same olde tired points
In fact it is only at 324 at this time, but the olde tired points continue; eg. no new material
I class "Orange Hoarde" to be same olde BS, btw
-
Of course that promise in hindsight was a mistake.
No!
It wasn't the promise that was the mistake, it was the breaking of it that was the mistake.
I knew when I heard he was thinking about breaking it that this would cost him a second term. The Democrats did not give a F*** about balancing the budget, they would offer him anything to get him to break that vow, and the stupid sap fell for it even though a blind man could see what they were about.
And the Democratic Party beat it to death.
Which is exactly what they were after in the first place!
All that being said, it was Perot who cost Bush 1 his second term.
Perot and the Media and Bush falling for that stupid Democrat trap.
-
In fact it is only at 324 at this time, but the olde tired points continue; eg. no new material
Paula Poundstone and Carrot Top made nice livings without any new material. Don't knock it.
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/550c8816e4b07f1da6705ffa/t/5879f021e58c62d26c1062de/1484386340963/?format=500w)
-
Can you let me know when you "Unlock this sucker"? I have a whole lot more to say on this thread about minivans. I forgot to cover Chrysler products on the last thread I hijacked....
I don't think you've talked about these yet either.
(http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/1985ChevroletAstro15-crop.jpg)
-
If Perot doesn't run, Bush 1 beats Bill Clinton handily...and the best players today on the game show Jeopardy might not know the first name of Bill Clinton's wife.
Wouldn't that be wonderful !
-
I don't think you've talked about these yet either.
(http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/1985ChevroletAstro15-crop.jpg)
I was saving the best for last. Those came in All Wheel Drive ya know........that didn't work too well....
(http://www.car-accidents.com/2007-crash-pics/5-28-07-astro-van-1.gif)
-
No, the promise wasn't the problem. Breaking the promise was the problem.
This is exactly right. Feeding the beast more taxes was just stupid and wrong. Never allowing another tax increase was exactly the right thing to do. Making a deal with Democrats to break that pledge was a colossal level of stupid.
Good. I am glad he lost, regardless. There has to be a consequence - something party-line lesser evil wonks don't seem to understand.
I wanted Bush out. He needed to be kicked out of office for breaking that pledge, and I was ready to vote for his opponent. Then they put up that piece of sh*t Bill Clinton and I had to switch back to supporting Bush the moron.
It galled me to work for his reelection, and it still galls me to this very day. Yes, Bush needed to be kicked out, but the Country did not need that bastard Bill Clinton, and my love of country was greater than my disgust for George HW Bush.
Interestingly enough, while campaigning for his father, George W Bush flew in to meet his dad's supporters, and I met and shook hands with him.
While shaking his hand, I looked down at his feet and he was wearing tassled penny loafers, and my first thought was "Yuppie Larva."
-
I wanted Bush out. He needed to be kicked out of office for breaking that pledge, and I was ready to vote for his opponent. Then they put up that piece of sh*t Bill Clinton and I had to switch back to supporting Bush the moron.
Me too. But at the time, I was a tried and true 'Pull the lever for the Rhinestone R' guy.
I regret that vote. And the second vote I gave to his son, only for the war. That particular apple didn't fall far from the horse. And he's also the last Republican president I voted for.
Nevermore.
-
And no, while its an easy and childish answer to proclaim so, the parties are very much NOT the same.
You are welcome to immerse yourself in totally immersive cognitive dissonance and Normalcy Bias to sate your blind faith in salvation from a corrupt party to your heart's content.
The fruits of the last decade-plus speak to the futility of practicing insanity by voting for Republicans.
Never again. The fruits speak. There is little difference in either party as both empower Statism and Oligarchy.
And frankly, I hope your diseased party goes the way of the Whigs.
I just wish I could get back all the years I stumped for them as a precinct captain and obtain a refund of all the money I wasted on them because I fell for the same stupid and insipid argumentation you are offering as a justification of your failed party right now.
I am done playing the battered wife and doing the same stupid thing over and over and over again while your party morphed into the Democrat party right under your nose.
Its a guarantee of losing...permanently...the GOP and your little 3rd party would become irrelevant and conservatism as a viable political force would be lost in this nation.
We're already there so it's a moot point altogether. Your political messiah in the White House is already seeing to the irrelevancy of Conservatism as is the party he pretends to head.
Why would anyone claiming to be a conservative wish for such a thing?
Reality dictates we start over from scratch.
You cannot grow fresh from rotten, lawful from lawlessness, justice from corruption. Yet that is all you offer.
And please spare us the instance that your party can be reformed with more elections. Some of us remember what your party's leadership did the last two conventions to ensure no possible Conservative contender can possibly win a national nomination.
-
No, the promise wasn't the problem. Breaking the promise was the problem.
Good. I am glad he lost, regardless. There has to be a consequence - something party-line lesser evil wonks don't seem to understand.
These 'lesser evil' arguments are old saw. All y'all need some new shtick.
"Breaking the promise was the problem."
Yes it was...as of course I meant.
I'm not interested in rehashing the 1992 election too much. Forward to now...Trump is not at all a lesser evil...it's a movement and a great one at that.
Sorry to inform you, but in today's America, a solid conservative just isn't electable for POTUS. No sense in fantasizing because it isn't going to happen.
Trump is the best conservative we are going to get. Like it or not. To those who don't like it, I would suggest to think back on eight years of Barack Obama misery, which I don't ever wish to repeat.
You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.
-
Trump is not at all a lesser evil...it's a movement and a great one at that.
Yeah... it's a big 'movement' alright...
Sorry to inform you, but in today's America, a solid conservative just isn't electable for POTUS. No sense in fantasizing because it isn't going to happen.
Then you'll get no help from me. I vote for Conservatives. Only.
Trump is the best conservative we are going to get. Like it or not. To those who don't like it, I would suggest to think back on eight years of Barack Obama misery, which I don't ever wish to repeat.
Blah blah blah. More lesser evil bullshit. And Tump is no Conservative.
You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.
pffft.
-
I was saving the best for last. Those came in All Wheel Drive ya know........that didn't work too well....
(http://www.car-accidents.com/2007-crash-pics/5-28-07-astro-van-1.gif)
I have one I drive in town, good in snow under a foot, great turning radius (unlike the dodge Caravan was), easy to park, not bad on fuel, and once I pulled the ANS fuse, a great winter parts runner/go-fer buggy. I put about $1200 into it altogether counting the tires (more for parts than purchase), and I use the heck out of it. YMMV. I have other vehicles for the boonies.
-
Yeah... it's a big 'movement' alright...
Then you'll get no help from me. I vote for Conservatives. Only.
Blah blah blah. More lesser evil bullshit. And Tump is no Conservative.
pffft.
You can tell who these ads were aimed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qv8RSreIM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qv8RSreIM)
That's pretty much all I have to say about that.
-
And this is why I would not take a side in the Great Trump War on TBR. I have my feelings in the matter, make no mistake, but I don't talk about them because, at the end of the day, I don't need more enemies than I had in the morning. But I won't deny, the supporters of Trump have done their level best to drive the "never Trump" people away, angry.
Now, the hand of friendship has been slapped away so much I can't blame you for considering yourself an enemy, and it's a damned shame. We all have the same basic beliefs about where this country should go.
Bullshit on buttered toast is still a crap sandwich, @Cyber Liberty
Don't quit your day job....'diplomacy' isn't your calling.
-
Bullshit on buttered toast is still a crap sandwich, @Cyber Liberty
Don't quit your day job....'diplomacy' isn't your calling.
Indeed. If I was trying to bring anybody together, I certainly failed. You were the only person to even acknowledged I posted anything. :whistle:
-
Indeed. If I was trying to bring anybody together, I certainly failed. You were the only person to even acknowledged I posted anything. :whistle:
LOL! You drew the short straw.
That's what you get. Everyone else was BORING! ^-^
-
LOL! You drew the short straw.
That's what you get. Everyone else was BORING! ^-^
Ouch. I've seen threads killed for that. Well, it's OK I drew the short one, it means I was in the game.
:beer:
-
Just got here this morning and in spite of yall pizzing off a Mod up thread and causing the temporary Lock it has been a very spirited debate, Kudo's to all my fellow Briefers for once again showing me why this is my 'GO TO' place for political discussion. Carry On.
@EasyAce let me know how that book turns out looks like a very interesting read.
-
You replied to my two point remark,
--500+ posts
--Same olde tired points
In fact it is only at 324 at this time, but the olde tired points continue; eg. no new material
I class "Orange Hoarde" to be same olde BS, btw
That's because I finally decided to read the thread and see if there was anything useful in the OP. There wasn't...and your post...the second or third one in with the tired NT bullsh*t just sealed it that there was nothing of use or value.
You killed any intelligent debate in this thread before the first page was complete.
-
Yeah... it's a big 'movement' alright...
Then you'll get no help from me. I vote for Conservatives. Only.
Blah blah blah. More lesser evil bullshit. And Tump is no Conservative.
pffft.
I'd like to have George Washington as president, but George died a long time ago.
Have to live in reality, otherwise we accomplish nothing and our cause deteriorates into oblivion.
I don't think some on our side realize how close we were the past eight years to losing our freedom and liberty, which is exactly what the left wants. If the military would have been on the side of Obama, well it could have gotten real ugly.
The left would love for there to be a third party with a conservative candidate. We should NOT hand them the presidency on a silver platter.
-
We should NOT hand them the presidency on a silver platter.
Oh please. The Republican Party handed Obama his entire agenda on a silver platter with gold spoons while telling Conservatives to shut up and get out of their party.
So you can cram the sentiments. We're not buying them anymore.
Your party is as corrupt, evil and Statist as the Democrat Party is, if not moreso.
And I'm done being their bitch.
-
Explain to me your affinity for Hillary Clinton. I'm interested.
Because, that was our choice. It wasn't Gary Johnson or Evan McMullan or Jill Stein or any of the other self-serving wannabes.
It was Trump or Clinton. Reality. Trump won. Would you have wished a different outcome?
Trump has nominated and seated Gorsuch. He opened up the Keystone and Dakota pipelines. He's reinvigorated our vital coal industry. He crap-canned the onerous Paris accord. And any thoughts NAFTA, the PPP, the Iran deal and other Obama-era giveaways would stand.
He is hated by the media. He's hated by Hollywood. He's hated by the people like Krauthammer, Kristol, Rubin, Goldberg etc. who have become rich by their opposition to a Democrat regime. Trump has killed their franchise, made them slink to sewers like CNN and MSNBC.
Trump has had a FAR better first nine months in office - for conservatives - that Reagan, Bush 41 or Bush 43.
I shake my head at his style, too. But he WINS. It burns deep in him, it gives him life. Winning. He's winning for us.
Yep.
Say, you don’t have the other half of this amulet I’m wearing?
-
You are welcome to immerse yourself in totally immersive cognitive dissonance and Normalcy Bias to sate your blind faith in salvation from a corrupt party to your heart's content. ....
I herby place this post into nomination for QFT! 88devil
-
Bullshit on buttered toast is still a crap sandwich, @Cyber Liberty
Don't quit your day job....'diplomacy' isn't your calling.
88devil
888high58888 @DCPatriot
-
Bullshit on buttered toast is still a crap sandwich, @Cyber Liberty
Don't quit your day job....'diplomacy' isn't your calling.
@DCPatriot
And yours either if I may be so bold as to say so!
-
It started with a link on Drudge to Whitewater and a few of us Clinton haters went there and the day it officially became Free Republic, I signed up.
So you remember when it was a black background and those awful frames, too? Ugh, I hated frames.
-
@DCPatriot
And yours either if I may be so bold as to say so!
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/22528676_1272108209562558_7329606125455681699_o.jpg?oh=e41d64e5a9c9f029c1bcd29337ed0c41&oe=5A871B29)
-
Oh please. The Republican Party handed Obama his entire agenda on a silver platter with gold spoons while telling Conservatives to shut up and get out of their party.
So you can cram the sentiments. We're not buying them anymore.
Your party is as corrupt, evil and Statist as the Democrat Party is, if not moreso.
And I'm done being their bitch.
No sentiments at all here.
Good luck searching for a "perfect political party" - it doesn't exist and never will. I guess having a king is the closest there could be to that, and if you recall, we got rid of a king in 1776.
Like it or not, the parties evolved from the way our Founding Fathers set up our country. If you can think of a better way to do it, please let us know.
-
I think @roamer_1 is a decent enough guy but his Trump hate does not allow him to see beyond any issue. He is totally obsessed with Trump hate and cannot be reasoned with.
I know. I've tried.
We’ve all tried to pull him and others back from the brink. But after ten months and counting–it’s beyond tedious.
If self-proclaimed conservatives continue along this track in to second term territory it may will rightly best be characterized as ludicrous, pointless and trollish.
-
"Breaking the promise was the problem."
Yes it was...as of course I meant.
I'm not interested in rehashing the 1992 election too much. Forward to now...Trump is not at all a lesser evil...it's a movement and a great one at that.
Sorry to inform you, but in today's America, a solid conservative just isn't electable for POTUS. No sense in fantasizing because it isn't going to happen.
Trump is the best conservative we are going to get. Like it or not. To those who don't like it, I would suggest to think back on eight years of Barack Obama misery, which I don't ever wish to repeat.
You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.
:thumbsup:
Like the way you tied in the Trump rally theme song. Smooth. :beer:
-
NOPE! Not offended in the least! Just keeping the facts straight!
-
So you remember when it was a black background and those awful frames, too? Ugh, I hated frames.
No, but I remember logging in late at night and asking 'is anybody there?'
-
NOPE! Not offended in the least! Just keeping the facts straight!
@Bigun
Luv ya, buddy! :beer:
Truth is, I was saving that meme for somebody else, but patience was lacking. :laugh:
-
:thumbsup:
Like the way you tied in the Trump rally theme song. Smooth. :beer:
I think some on our side don't like Trump's personality and bring that too much into their political equation. Sure he's rough around the edges, but so what? The guy is a winner, smart, works hard, a leader, has an outstanding family, and he is conservative. That's a pretty damn good combination in my view.
-
"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.
Lyrics for Rolling Stone's song, by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards
The Beatles' hit "Taxman," lyrics by George Harrison
Who says you need to be a lawyer to have insightful comments about life/politics/philosophy?
REALITY: The 2016 election would result in one of two outcomes
--more of the Obama, socialist direction, with Clinton's crime family back in charge,
--or Trump with all of his warts, and changing to a more conservative direction
THERE WERE NO OTHER OUTCOMES likely, possible, probable. Period.
Gazing into one's Constipation Party navel for four years, is a pastime, but not a possible outcome
-
Good luck searching for a "perfect political party" - it doesn't exist and never will.
Good luck when voting for lesser evils and greater and greater Liberal Leftists you think are going to save you from Statism and revert us back to a Republic in your "imperfect" party. I'm done practicing that form of insanity. But you guys go right on ahead.
I have other plans.
I guess having a king is the closest there could be to that, and if you recall, we got rid of a king in 1776.
Your compatriots and this people have made it clear that they wanted a 'king'/'Dictator' as long as he gave you what you wanted. History teaches that human nature will always clamor for a king to rule them when a people who do not trust their neighbors with liberty and whom do not want the responsibility that is required to maintain it.
Like it or not, the parties evolved from the way our Founding Fathers set up our country. If you can think of a better way to do it, please let us know.
A return to that which you and this people have said is no longer a winnable option and no longer wanted or desired by the population.
So enjoy the Socialism, however it is you convince yourself is better than the alternative.
-
Have to live in reality, otherwise we accomplish nothing and our cause deteriorates into oblivion.
Your cause is not a cause. The very essence of Conservatism is centered upon immovable truths, that you find sacrificial. I will have no part in it. I will stand on this same immovable ground and forego the shifting sands of your 'cause'. Screw your cause.
I don't think some on our side realize how close we were the past eight years to losing our freedom and liberty, which is exactly what the left wants. If the military would have been on the side of Obama, well it could have gotten real ugly.
No different than right now.
The left would love for there to be a third party with a conservative candidate. We should NOT hand them the presidency on a silver platter.
Then so be it. When you have to squint to see the difference between the two, it really doesn't matter which 'side' wins. The fetid stench of Republican 'compromise' goes clean to the bone.
Even in your own words.
-
REALITY: The 2016 election would result in one of two outcomes
--more of the Obama, socialist direction, with Clinton's crime family back in charge,
--or Trump with all of his warts, and changing to a more conservative direction
THERE WERE NO OTHER OUTCOMES likely, possible, probable. Period.
A distinction without a difference. So why bother?
-
Your party is as corrupt, evil and Statist as the Democrat Party is, if not moreso.
And I'm done being their bitch.
Then start being irrelevant.
-
A distinction without a difference. So why bother?
Fool. The differences are humongous, and important to conservatives.
We'd best learn a lesson that the Dems have taken to heart - solidarity. Even with no control of any of the branches of government, the Dems have thwarted conservative policy goals quite effectively. Because they're united in opposition, and we're fractious and divided and there are too damn many of us who'd rather see nothing accomplished unless its ideologically pure.
We are, truly, our own worst enemy.
-
We are, truly, our own worst enemy.
There is no 'we'. Not between you and I. Nor between mine and yours. There is little we agree upon - not enough for kith and kin.
Go your way. I'll go mine.
-
Then start being irrelevant.
What is irrelevant is a party that is less than a few degrees different from their opposition.
That is irrelevance.
-
Fool. The differences are humongous, and important to conservatives.
We'd best learn a lesson that the Dems have taken to heart - solidarity. Even with no control of any of the branches of government, the Dems have thwarted conservative policy goals quite effectively. Because they're united in opposition, and we're fractious and divided and there are too damn many of us who'd rather see nothing accomplished unless its ideologically pure.
We are, truly, our own worst enemy.
That’s right. All or nothing at all in a politically divided populace is not how to advance a conservative constitutionalist agenda. Reagan understood and practiced that. And Pres.Trump has now taken up Reagan’s mantle.
-
Then start being irrelevant.
I'm hardly irrelevant.
I'm the thorn in your side. I intend to remain so.
We'd best learn a lesson that the Dems have taken to heart - solidarity.
We have no intention to be part of your uniparty solidarity. The GOP and the Democrats are already unified and in concert with the same agenda. That there is the demand we join that solidarity is.... nuts.
Because they're united in opposition, and we're fractious and divided and there are too damn many of us who'd rather see nothing accomplished unless its ideologically pure.
We are, truly, our own worst enemy.
We have absolutely nothing in common with the Republican Party and Leftists like you who populate it and pretend to be Conservatives while spewing Liberalism. You demonstrate that fact plainly here on this board on a daily basis.
We have nothing in common. Nothing.
Your party said repeatedly via it's leaders in the party, the Senate, it's president and his staff in the White House that "Christian Conservatives" who would not compromise their principles were not wanted, needed or required. Hordes of Trump supporters declared us a domestic enemy that deserved death for the way we refused to vote for Trump because 'the country was at stake' - so the enemy we are.
I embrace that assertion.
In fact, I intend to live up to the assertion and do all I can to render the Republican party to the same place of political irrelevance as the Whigs.
-
There is no 'we'. Not between you and I. Nor between mine and yours. There is little we agree upon - not enough for kith and kin.
Go your way. I'll go mine.
You'd be surprised how much we likely agree on. I know we disagree on social issues, but the GOP is a coalition that stands for far more than what animates the religious. I've been voting GOP since I was 18 - that's over 40 years now. I'd say you're a fool if you demand that a main street conservative/centrist like me leave the coalition. But you're already leaving, unwilling to caucus with the like-minded and unwilling to compromise your sacred principles. Join the half of all adults who voluntarily render yourselves irrelevant on Election Day.
I prefer to stay relevant and lend my efforts to electing conservatives and growing respect for liberty, limited government and the equal protection of the law.
-
All or nothing at all in a politically divided populace is not how to advance a conservative constitutionalist agenda.
Been hearing and watching political party hacks in the GOP spew that bullshit for the better part of almost 30 years. Your party that has been pushing that 'the perfect is the enemy of good' claptrap has absolutely NOTHING to show for their efforts except the fact that they are now indistinguishable from the Leftist Democrats.
Idiots keep insisting you choose the lesser Liberals and Leftists as your party rulers. And your own party hacks and protagonists even right here on this board have openly stated that advancing a Conservative Constitutional agenda is no longer possible and a LOSING position politically, while advocating embracing the Democrat position and making Liberalism their own agenda.
You and your party stand for nothing but better managed Big Government Statism.
-
I'm hardly irrelevant.
I'm the thorn in your side. I intend to remain so.
We have no intention to be part of your uniparty solidarity. The GOP and the Democrats are already unified and in concert with the same agenda. That there is the demand we join that solidarity is.... nuts.
We have absolutely nothing in common with the Republican Party and Leftists like you who populate it and pretend to be Conservatives while spewing Liberalism. You demonstrate that fact plainly here on this board on a daily basis.
We have nothing in common. Nothing.
Your party said repeatedly via it's leaders in the party, the Senate, it's president and his staff in the White House that "Christian Conservatives" who would not compromise their principles were not wanted, needed or required. Hordes of Trump supporters declared us a domestic enemy that deserved death for the way we refused to vote for Trump because 'the country was at stake' - so the enemy we are.
I embrace that assertion.
In fact, I intend to live up to the assertion and do all I can to render the Republican party to the same place of political irrelevance as the Whigs.
Blah, blah, blah. You got nothing but hot air. Go suck up to your God and leave the heavy lifting to those who understand how political power and influence is forged.
And don't flatter yourself that you're a thorn in my side. You're a joke.
-
You'd be surprised how much we likely agree on. I know we disagree on social issues, but the GOP is a coalition that stands for far more than what animates the religious. I've been voting GOP since I was 18 - that's over 40 years now. I'd say you're a fool if you demand that a main street conservative/centrist like me leave the coalition. But you're already leaving, unwilling to caucus with the like-minded and unwilling to compromise your sacred principles. Join the half of all adults who voluntarily render yourselves irrelevant on Election Day.
I prefer to stay relevant and lend my efforts to electing conservatives and growing respect for liberty, limited government and the equal protection of the law.
We have discussed other than social issues and disagreed. I have yet to see a single Conservative stance you have been willing to defend. No, your kind and mine are not in agreement, and will not be in agreement.
nuff said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMT4brMjjgM
-
You'd be surprised how much we likely agree on.
Wrong. You hate the central core of what animates our thinking and way of life, by your own admission over myriad threads. Therefore we have absolutely NOTHING in common.
unwilling to caucus with the like-minded and unwilling to compromise your sacred principles.
We are NOT like-minded, and the fact you and others have declared our refusal to compromise sacred principles - as an evil, showcases, illustrates and makes clear the fact that we have absolutely nothing in common with you and yours.
Go suck up to your God and leave the heavy lifting to those who understand how political power and influence is forged.
Always into tyranny such a people as yourself forge chains and demand obeisance. Ridicule giving way to imprisonment and then mass graves because you understand how political power and influence is forged sans the God you advised I 'suck up to'.
And don't flatter yourself that you're a thorn in my side. You're a joke.
Thorn, joke - I'm there...
...and that is what matters.
-
Been hearing and watching political party hacks in the GOP spew that bullshit for the better part of almost 30 years. Your party that has been pushing that 'the perfect is the enemy of good' claptrap has absolutely NOTHING to show for their efforts except the fact that they are now indistinguishable from the Leftist Democrats.
Idiots keep insisting you choose the lesser Liberals and Leftists as your party rulers. And your own party hacks and protagonists even right here on this board have openly stated that advancing a Conservative Constitutional agenda is no longer possible and a LOSING position politically, while advocating embracing the Democrat position and making Liberalism their own agenda.
You and your party stand for nothing but better managed Big Government Statism.
That is precisely right.
-
We have discussed other than social issues and disagreed. I have yet to see a single Conservative stance you have been willing to defend. No, your kind and mine are not in agreement, and will not be in agreement.
nuff said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMT4brMjjgM
Doesn't matter anyway - you're politically impotent by your own choice.
-
Doesn't matter anyway - you're politically impotent by your own choice.
Impotence is a party that is but a few degrees separate from it's opposition.
-
That’s right. All or nothing at all in a politically divided populace is not how to advance a conservative constitutionalist agenda. Reagan understood and practiced that. And Pres.Trump has now taken up Reagan’s mantle.
Trump couldn't hold Reagan's riding boots.
And he was anti abortion.
But hey thanks for stopping by and injecting your daily dose of Trump propaganda into a random discussion.
-
Trump couldn't hold Reagan's riding boots.
And he was anti abortion.
But hey thanks for stopping by and injecting your daily dose of Trump propaganda into a random discussion.
I have been chastised for being mean to you so I will just say, I enjoy your posts and did you know David Gold? He was a conservative voice on Dallas radio for a long time and he was the first person I knew who used the term 'sheeple.' I just ran across a picture of me with him at ... a TOS meeting. One of Clinton's former girlfriends from Arkansas was also there (selling a book, of course)
-
I have been chastised for being mean to you so I will just say, I enjoy your posts and did you know David Gold? He was a conservative voice on Dallas radio for a long time and he was the first person I knew who used the term 'sheeple.' I just ran across a picture of me with him at ... a TOS meeting. One of Clinton's former girlfriends from Arkansas was also there (selling a book, of course)
I was at a couple of TOS meetings. A cruise and Friva in Vegas....
-
Your cause is not a cause. The very essence of Conservatism is centered upon immovable truths, that you find sacrificial. I will have no part in it. I will stand on this same immovable ground and forego the shifting sands of your 'cause'. Screw your cause.
No different than right now.
Then so be it. When you have to squint to see the difference between the two, it really doesn't matter which 'side' wins. The fetid stench of Republican 'compromise' goes clean to the bone.
Even in your own words.
No squinting necessary to see the difference between Donald Trump, and Barack Obama or anyone else on the left.
-
No squinting necessary to see the difference between Donald Trump, and Barack Obama or anyone else on the left.
I see almost no difference. The similarities, in fact, are almost eerie......
-
I was at a couple of TOS meetings. A cruise and Friva in Vegas....
Wow. I remember those cruises ... never lucky enough to go on one. This one was big and had speakers and then a get together. I think it was in Grand Prairie or Arlington.
-
Wow. I remember those cruises ... never lucky enough to go on one. This one was big and had speakers and then a get together. I think it was in Grand Prairie or Arlington.
Well, the cruise was supposed to have David Horowtiz, but we were lied to and he wasn't there. Friva had Laura Ingraham, but we didn't donate enough money to Jimrob to get to actually meet her. Threw out a couple of unautographed books because we were lied to. Meh.
-
Well, the cruise was supposed to have David Horowtiz, but we were lied to and he wasn't there. Friva had Laura Ingraham, but we didn't donate enough money to Jimrob to get to actually meet her. Threw out a couple of unautographed books because we were lied to. Meh.
Oh, no. Well, at least you were on a cruise.
-
Oh, no. Well, at least you were on a cruise.
It was fun...except for the times we had to waste listening to Bob J's stupid lectures (on the cruise and in Vegas). We enjoyed the tours of Nassau. :smokin:
-
I see almost no difference.
Helen Keller could see AND hear the difference....why is it, do you think, that the Far Left goes apoplectic at the mere mention of the name Trump?
I'll give you a hint...its not because they have any eerie similarities. Rather, they realize...quite astutely...that he is quite literally the opposite of all they advocate for and hold dear. Worse, like the countless conservatives they've cowed with their PC whip, Trump holds to his course like a mad bull after a red cape...they lose their cookies over him because they cannot stop or intimidate him.
Whatever he was in the past, he has become the antithesis of liberalism...and even they see it. Its astounding that anyone on the right could have so blinded themselves as to not see what's glaring in their face like 100 megaton flash.
-
Been hearing and watching political party hacks in the GOP spew that bullshit for the better part of almost 30 years. Your party that has been pushing that 'the perfect is the enemy of good' claptrap has absolutely NOTHING to show for their efforts except the fact that they are now indistinguishable from the Leftist Democrats.
Idiots keep insisting you choose the lesser Liberals and Leftists as your party rulers. And your own party hacks and protagonists even right here on this board have openly stated that advancing a Conservative Constitutional agenda is no longer possible and a LOSING position politically, while advocating embracing the Democrat position and making Liberalism their own agenda.
You and your party stand for nothing but better managed Big Government Statism.
If you can't tell the difference between Neil Gorsuch and the leftist disease Elena Kagan...well then I hope you start paying better attention to the Supreme Court.
If we lose presidential elections, we lose the Supreme Court.
This is a huge positive factor in Republicans winning the presidency...keeping the Supreme Court as conservative as possible.
-
Helen Keller could see AND hear the difference....why is it, do you think, that the Far Left goes apoplectic at the mere mention of the name Trump?
Oh horse crap. They'd go apoplectic if Lindsay freaking Graham was the president.
-
If you can't tell the difference between Neil Gorsuch and the leftist disease Elena Kagan...well then I hope you start paying better attention to the Supreme Court.
If we lose presidential elections, we lose the Supreme Court.
This is a huge positive factor in Republicans winning the presidency...keeping the Supreme Court as conservative as possible.
Riiight... like that 'conservative icon', Roberts. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Oh horse crap. They'd go apoplectic if Lindsay freaking Graham was the president.
No. No they wouldn't. Your kidding yourself.
Sure, they'd be critical of ANY GOP president...but the McCain's, Graham's and Bush's of the world slowly morph into a vanilla version of conservatism that becomes so benign its primary trait is banality. They cave to the PC enough to appease the Left, who still dislikes them but tolerates their presence without true hysterics. With Trump...they are 100% out of their minds in a tizzy of ever bubbling Trump Derangement Syndrome...kinda like Invar.
If you are SO blind you think there's no difference between a Neil Gorsuch...and an Elena Kagan...you've simply surrendered all of your mental faculties to your NT'ism. Its one thing to oppose the man, but to simply turn off your brain like that in favor of rampant emotionalism...well, its almost...liberal.
-
No. No they wouldn't. Your kidding yourself.
Total pap. Geo. W. Bush faced every bit as much. Every single bit... And I don't like him either.
If you are SO blind you think there's no difference between a Neil Gorsuch...and an Elena Kagan...you've simply surrendered all of your mental faculties to your NT'ism.
I have said, over and again that I will withhold credit on judges specifically because of Roberts.
He too was sold as an originalist in the mold of Scalia, with high praise all around - and he (single-handedly) ushered in the most noxious unconstitutional law since friggin FDR.
Funny how there were many then mentioning all sorts of multi-dimensional chess in defense of his idiocy too.
-
If you can't tell the difference between Neil Gorsuch and the leftist disease Elena Kagan...well then I hope you start paying better attention to the Supreme Court.
If we lose presidential elections, we lose the Supreme Court.
This is a huge positive factor in Republicans winning the presidency...keeping the Supreme Court as conservative as possible.
So you bought the lie that liberty and the Constitution rests upon the whims of 9 justices in black robes. Hooray for you.
So much for the Republic.
I do not know who this 'we' is that you reference losing presidential elections. I don't subscribe to the idea of monarchy or dictatorship as long as it's "our guy". I run far away from mobs of zealots who loft up political messiahs as national saviors. History teaches that is the prudent thing to do.
As I said, your Republican party is dead to me. It is just another arm of the federal Oligarchy that is soundly Statist and I have absolutely no intention of supporting it, or anyone in it. Rather my whole purpose now is to assist in sending it to the grave of irrelevance with the Whigs as soon as possible by getting as many principles Conservatives out of it and into something new.
I'm living up to the title your compatriots tossed upon those of us who refused to support or vote for Trump.
-
Helen Keller could see AND hear the difference....why is it, do you think, that the Far Left goes apoplectic at the mere mention of the name Trump?
I'll give you a hint...its not because they have any eerie similarities. Rather, they realize...quite astutely...that he is quite literally the opposite of all they advocate for and hold dear. Worse, like the countless conservatives they've cowed with their PC whip, Trump holds to his course like a mad bull after a red cape...they lose their cookies over him because they cannot stop or intimidate him.
The left uses Drama as it's most effective tool. (Do it for the Children!) They are alarmed that their political enemy is a master of Drama and understands how to use it.
Their arguments have always been unreasoned emotional arguments that do not always conform to known facts. (We must ban guns to stop the killing!) They know accuracy isn't important so long as the topic rouses sufficient passion in their target audience. (The dumber, more emotional part of the electorate.)
Trump is hitting them with their own tactics, but doing a better job of it than they are. He's using emotion to persuade, and anyone that knows anything about human nature can tell you that emotion always beats logic and reason. Always.
He's kicking their @$$ with their own best weapon, and they know it. That's why they are so alarmed at him.
-
Riiight... like that 'conservative icon', Roberts. *****rollingeyes*****
Roberts f*ed up big time on obamacare, no doubt about that.
But if Hillary won, and thank goodness she didn't, but if she did, then possibly Eric Holder or for sure some far leftist disease would be on the Supreme Court right now, and a lot of decisions are going to go 5-4.
If ya don't like the way our Founding Fathers set up our country, then maybe you should write a letter of complaint to the descendants of James Madison.
-
Oh horse crap. They'd go apoplectic if Lindsay freaking Graham was the president.
So would I !!!
-
The left uses Drama as it's most effective tool. (Do it for the Children!) They are alarmed that their political enemy is a master of Drama and understands how to use it.
That is true.
Their arguments have always been unreasoned emotional arguments that do not always conform to known facts. [...] They know accuracy isn't important so long as the topic rouses sufficient passion in their target audience.
[...]
Trump is hitting them with their own tactics, but doing a better job of it than they are. He's using emotion to persuade, and anyone that knows anything about human nature can tell you that emotion always beats logic and reason. Always.
He's kicking their @$$ with their own best weapon, and they know it. That's why they are so alarmed at him.
That is probably true too -and why it does not translate into Conservatism, which is based in principle and truth.
And in that you readily admit that this Tump 'movement' is based in emotionalism, and is unconcerned with truth and reason. In that I will heartily concur.
And that emotional investment, against all principle and reason is different from the liberals how?
It is no different. And then you wonder why Conservatives remain against you.
-
So you bought the lie that liberty and the Constitution rests upon the whims of 9 justices in black robes. Hooray for you.
So much for the Republic.
I do not know who this 'we' is that you reference losing presidential elections. I don't subscribe to the idea of monarchy or dictatorship as long as it's "our guy". I run far away from mobs of zealots who loft up political messiahs as national saviors. History teaches that is the prudent thing to do.
As I said, your Republican party is dead to me. It is just another arm of the federal Oligarchy that is soundly Statist and I have absolutely no intention of supporting it, or anyone in it. Rather my whole purpose now is to assist in sending it to the grave of irrelevance with the Whigs as soon as possible by getting as many principles Conservatives out of it and into something new.
I'm living up to the title your compatriots tossed upon those of us who refused to support or vote for Trump.
"So you bought the lie that liberty and the Constitution rests upon the whims of 9 justices in black robes."
So you want the SS in black uniforms dispensing justice instead?
Our Founding Fathers truly were amazing to create the system of government that they did. It's a shame that some don't seem to appreciate it. Is it perfect? Of course not. I'd like to see the lifetime appointment aspect of Supreme Court justices be changed to say 20 years. But in any event, the system of government we have is by far the best that's ever been invented.
-
Roberts f*ed up big time on obamacare, no doubt about that.
But if Hillary won, and thank goodness she didn't, but if she did, then possibly Eric Holder or for sure some far leftist disease would be on the Supreme Court right now, and a lot of decisions are going to go 5-4.
And holder would have decided Obamacare differently how? THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
That's where your 'lesser evil' arguments completely disintegrate. It won't work anymore, at least on me, and more and more, I am not alone.
If ya don't like the way our Founding Fathers set up our country, then maybe you should write a letter of complaint to the descendants of James Madison.
If you'd care to read the fathers, you will find them vehemently opposed to party politics, and for this very reason. It is those who retain their principles that are in line with their position. I don't mind a party, but it is only as good as what it will stand for.
-
And in that you readily admit that this Tump 'movement' is based in emotionalism, and is unconcerned with truth and reason. In that I will heartily concur.
And that emotional investment, against all principle and reason is different from the liberals how?
It is no different. And then you wonder why Conservatives remain against you.
I said he is using their tactics, I didn't say he was advancing their ideology because he isn't. He's advancing ours using their weapons.
Are you familiar with Rush Limbaugh using the phrase "green eyeshade lingo"? He refers to Republican's tactics of citing droll numbers and figures to make a point, while at the same time boring everyone to death so they stop listening.
Using entertainment to get your point across is far more effective.
Trump is advancing a conservative agenda using Liberal methods. You may be upset that he's not doing it for the right reasons like "pure truth and principle", but I am content to take the advancement of the right ideas even if it is being done for the wrong reasons.
-
And he might even be doing it for the right reasons.
Trump: ‘Freedom Is Not a Gift from Government; Freedom Is a Gift from God’
(https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Screen-Shot-2017-10-17-at-7.37.18-PM.png)
President Donald Trump spoke at the Heritage Foundation’s annual President’s Club meeting and credited the Founding Fathers for understanding that freedom doesn’t come from government.
Trump echoed previous comments he has made, such as in June when he declared, "In America, we don’t worship government, we worship God." He credited the Heritage Foundation for understanding this.
"You understand that human progress must be built upon a firm foundation of timeless truths," Trump told the Heritage crowd. "These truths are immortalized in our founding documents, and the most important truth our Founders understood was this: Freedom is not a gift from government; freedom is a gift from God."
http://freebeacon.com/politics/trump-freedom-not-gift-government-freedom-gift-god/
-
And holder would have decided Obamacare differently how? THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
That's where your 'lesser evil' arguments completely disintegrate. It won't work anymore, at least on me, and more and more, I am not alone.
If you'd care to read the fathers, you will find them vehemently opposed to party politics, and for this very reason. It is those who retain their principles that are in line with their position. I don't mind a party, but it is only as good as what it will stand for.
"If you'd care to read the fathers, you will find them vehemently opposed to party politics'
Yes, they set aside their political differences to write the Constitution.
And I already said I agree with the criticism of Roberts on obamacare. I would also agree that Roberts has been inconsistent. Sometimes it just works out that way. But if Trump can stay in for seven more years, he will be able to change the Supreme Court decisions to solid conservative for a generation.
-
I said he is using their tactics, I didn't say he was advancing their ideology because he isn't. He's advancing ours using their weapons.
You are hopefully using that 'ours' very loosely. Because he is not advancing mine.
Using entertainment to get your point across is far more effective.
There might be the disconnect, because I find none of Tump or his movement entertaining. In fact, I find it sophomoric and abhorrent.
Trump is advancing a conservative agenda using Liberal methods. You may be upset that he's not doing it for the right reasons like "pure truth and principle", but I am content to take the advancement of the right ideas even if it is being done for the wrong reasons.
And thus the next step into liberalism. The end justifying the means.
No thank you.
-
And he might even be doing it for the right reasons.
Trump: ‘Freedom Is Not a Gift from Government; Freedom Is a Gift from God’
(https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Screen-Shot-2017-10-17-at-7.37.18-PM.png)
http://freebeacon.com/politics/trump-freedom-not-gift-government-freedom-gift-god/
That truly was a great speech, as most of Trump's speeches are.
I'm looking forward to seven more years.
-
"If you'd care to read the fathers, you will find them vehemently opposed to party politics'
But if they had been so foolish as to believe parties would not form, they wouldn't have bothered dividing the powers of government into checks and balances.
The whole theory is built on the assumption that there will be opposing forces, meaning "parties."
-
And I already said I agree with the criticism of Roberts on obamacare. I would also agree that Roberts has been inconsistent. Sometimes it just works out that way. But if Trump can stay in for seven more years, he will be able to change the Supreme Court decisions to solid conservative for a generation.
According to WHAT? What is it that you guarantee these hopes with? The promises of a perpetual liar and slanderer? Emotional bullcrap.
-
There might be the disconnect, because I find none of Tump or his movement entertaining. In fact, I find it sophomoric and abhorrent.
I'm loving it! He's making them scream, and that's the best way to tell when you are on the right track.
-
The whole theory is built on the assumption that there will be opposing forces, meaning "parties."
The key there being 'opposing'.
-
I'm looking forward to seven more years.
:thumbsup3:
MAGA!
-
According to WHAT? What is it that you guarantee these hopes with? The promises of a perpetual liar and slanderer? Emotional bullcrap.
Trump made a list of I think it was around twenty, Supreme Court possibilities he would pick if he was elected, and Neil Gorsuch was one of those on the list.
-
I'm loving it! He's making them scream, and that's the best way to tell when you are on the right track.
No, in fact, it isn't.
-
Trump made a list of I think it was around twenty, Supreme Court possibilities he would pick if he was elected, and Neil Gorsuch was one of those on the list.
So what?
-
I'm loving it! He's making them scream, and that's the best way to tell when you are on the right track.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
You deserved a double for that one. :patriot:
-
So what?
Because you ranted about Trump being a "perpetual liar"
Trump has been rock solid with attempting to keep all his campaign promises. Sure, he will negotiate if he needs to, but he's trying hard to get done everything he promised.
-
Because you ranted about Trump being a "perpetual liar"
It isn't a rant. It isn't even an accusation. It's just the truth. He lies through his teeth, all the damn time.
Trump has been rock solid with attempting to keep all his campaign promises. Sure, he will negotiate if he needs to, but he's trying hard to get done everything he promised.
meh. I don't see it.
-
It isn't a rant. It isn't even an accusation. It's just the truth. He lies through his teeth, all the damn time.
So did Clinton, both Bush's and Obama. What's the big deal about it now that has your panties in a bunch?
At least with Donny I haven't had my taxes surprisingly raised, guns outlawed, massive bureaucracies created that were "only going to catch the bad guy terrorists", health care destroyed and bailouts-a-plenty.
-
So did Clinton, both Bush's and Obama. What's the big deal about it now that has your panties in a bunch?
The same thing as then.
At least with Donny I haven't had my taxes surprisingly raised, guns outlawed, massive bureaucracies created that were "only going to catch the bad guy terrorists", health care destroyed and bailouts-a-plenty.
YET.
-
YET.
I can see being upset if it was happening but pining away to be miserable because of something that MIGHT happen is a terrible existence. Hell, just having Donny poke Hitlary in the eye yesterday for being a loser is a genuine blessing to feel good about.
-
"So you bought the lie that liberty and the Constitution rests upon the whims of 9 justices in black robes."
So you want the SS in black uniforms dispensing justice instead?
What a bullshit accusation.
Look pal, you're the guy who insisted that if "we" (whomever that is supposed to be) lose the Presidency, we lose the SCOTUS.
The fact SCOTUS no longer operates within the confines of its Constitutional role and creates law by fiat and rewrites legislation to make things "legal" and both parties play the see-saw to stack the court with their own preferred ideologues to act towards their favor - and my calling you out on that score, equates my desire to have Secret Police dispensing "justice"? SCOTUS is not empowered to dispense "justice" - that is not its role. It was supposed to measure legal cases against the Constitution, not decide what is Constitutional based on their own ideological glasses.
But that is the role and game you and every other fear-mongering party hack throws in everyone's face to get them to support whatever party or political savior they demand we vote for.
The fact a single Justice has the balance of power in their hands as to deciding whether or not the Constitution is ignored or retained is nothing but a testament to how far off the mark we have already fallen into despotism and corruption.
You just want to keep perpetuating the shell game and circus we've been on for decades turning tighter and harder Left.
But in any event, the system of government we have is by far the best that's ever been invented.
Enjoy the corruption then. You deserve it.
I have other plans that do not entail practicing insanity.
-
I can see being upset if it was happening but pining away to be miserable because of something that MIGHT happen is a terrible existence. Hell, just having Donny poke Hitlary in the eye yesterday for being a loser is a genuine blessing to feel good about.
I am by no means miserable or pining.
And I don't give two shits about him 'poking Hitlery in the eye'.
Again, sophomoric. Woohooism.
-
I can see being upset if it was happening but pining away to be miserable because of something that MIGHT happen is a terrible existence. Hell, just having Donny poke Hitlary in the eye yesterday for being a loser is a genuine blessing to feel good about.
Yeah, that was fun but I think some people are determined to be miserable.
-
I am by no means miserable or pining.
And I don't give two shits about him 'poking Hitlery in the eye'.
Again, sophomoric. Woohooism.
I demand that you admit to being miserable.
Or, at least, to making everyone else miserable.
-
I am by no means miserable or pining.
And I don't give two shits about him 'poking Hitlery in the eye'.
Again, sophomoric. Woohooism.
So having a President who acts classy and says the right things is more important to you than actual tangible deeds. Boy you must have been in heaven since 1992 till Feb of this year.
-
The fact SCOTUS no longer operates within the confines of its Constitutional role and creates law by fiat and rewrites legislation to make things "legal" and both parties play the see-saw to stack the court with their own preferred ideologues to act towards their favor - and my calling you out on that score, equates my desire to have Secret Police dispensing "justice"? SCOTUS is not empowered to dispense "justice" - that is not its role. It was supposed to measure legal cases against the Constitution, not decide what is Constitutional based on their own ideological glasses.
That is exactly right. A proper (Conservative) Congress, jealous of it's power, would impeach 3/4ths of the present justices, and put an end to judicial fiat. Let me know when Republicans have the balls to do that - Because that is the Constitution becoming real again.
Not that Republicans will ever do that. We know they are well beyond that hope.
-
I demand that you admit to being miserable.
Or, at least, to making everyone else miserable.
We need a 'Bite me' emoji.
-
We need a 'Bite me' emoji.
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/horror/bite-me-smiley-emoticon.gif)
-
I demand that you admit to being miserable.
Or, at least, to making everyone else miserable.
Well, he's not making me miserable, so clearly not "everyone" else. But, speaking of a miserable person, what was it about Hillary that you liked more than Trump when you said you wished she would win?
-
So having a President who acts classy and says the right things is more important to you than actual tangible deeds. Boy you must have been in heaven since 1992 till Feb of this year.
Comportment IS important, as it indicates character. But I'm a merit guy.
So far there are no tangible deeds. Just everyone 'woohooing' over the rearrangement of deck chairs and Tump shaking his junk at 'the enemy'.
MEH. In caps.
-
And I don't give two shits about him 'poking Hitlery in the eye'.
Again, sophomoric. Woohooism.
Have you looked at the nation lately? We are living in idiocracy.
We like to think we are all intelligent reasoning beings, but we are in fact primitive people who like to see combatants mock and malign each other before combat is began.
"Sophomoric" is exactly what human nature is tailored to like. So is "Woohooism".
That's why Liberals are so successful with their endless propaganda disguised as entertainment. They know the world is a stage, and so they put on the drama to get what they want.
-
Well, he's not making me miserable, so clearly not "everyone" else. But, speaking of a miserable person, what was it about Hillary that you liked more than Trump when you said you wished she would win?
And away we go......
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/e277753949cce3b0a82ff29a6263df3b/tumblr_inline_o47vbpYPKI1sj9tjg_500.gif)
-
Have you looked at the nation lately? We are living in idiocracy.
So JOIN THEM?
Thanks, I have better things to do.
-
And away we go......
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/e277753949cce3b0a82ff29a6263df3b/tumblr_inline_o47vbpYPKI1sj9tjg_500.gif)
I think GLOW is more our style, don't you?
-
Comportment IS important, as it indicates character. But I'm a merit guy.
So far there are no tangible deeds. Just everyone 'woohooing' over the rearrangement of deck chairs and Tump shaking his junk at 'the enemy'.
MEH. In caps.
Since you put it that way, you are so right. I think about the class and comportment of W every time I board a plane and a TSA worker finger rapes my daughter. I also think of how sincere Bush was every time I see the crippled shell shocked kid at the end of the road that took fire in Afghanistan well after Bush's term ended. I really am filled with pride when I think about the pinnacle of class and refinement Obama when I get put in lines and waiting lists for healthcare because my overpriced insurance doesn't do what it used to when it was half the price.
Trump on the other hand. Now that you have me thinking I am outraged at his Twitting. Forget about him flushing alot of Obamas EO's, gutting Obamacare, Gorsich, fast response for natural disasters. All that shit is meaningless bullshit. We need to get back to smooth dignified leadership.
-
I think GLOW is more our style, don't you?
Your style is whatever turns me on at the time.
Learn it. Live it. Love it.
-
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/horror/bite-me-smiley-emoticon.gif)
Yeah... Not quite what I had in mind, but thanks for trying. :shrug:
-
Yeah... Not quite what I had in mind, but thanks for trying. :shrug:
It's October. Gotta be festive.
-
Since you put it that way, you are so right. I think about the class and comportment of W every time I board a plane and a TSA worker finger rapes my daughter. I also think of how sincere Bush was every time I see the crippled shell shocked kid at the end of the road that took fire in Afghanistan well after Bush's term ended. I really am filled with pride when I think about the pinnacle of class and refinement Obama when I get put in lines and waiting lists for healthcare because my overpriced insurance doesn't do what it used to when it was half the price.
I don't find any of the above to be examples of class or comportment.
Trump on the other hand. Now that you have me thinking I am outraged at his Twitting. Forget about him flushing alot of Obamas EO's, gutting Obamacare, Gorsich, fast response for natural disasters. All that shit is meaningless bullshit. We need to get back to smooth dignified leadership.
Yeah. Like I said, deck chairs. woohoo.
-
@roamer_1
@Frank Cannon
You know what? You're both right. I'm saying this sincerely. You're both right. We should have gotten better than we got.
-
You know what? You're both right. I'm saying this sincerely. You're both right. We should have gotten better than we got.
That's right. And that starts in principle, not populism.
-
@roamer_1
@Frank Cannon
You know what? You're both right. I'm saying this sincerely. You're both right. We should have gotten better than we got.
Your probably right. I have a high tolerance for political bullshit. Roamer not so much.
-
Well, he's not making me miserable, so clearly not "everyone" else. But, speaking of a miserable person, what was it about Hillary that you liked more than Trump when you said you wished she would win?
@RoosGirl
What is wrong with you? You have made that accusation without naming me on several threads.
I have chosen not to respond to you because you have been vindictive and flat out crazy to me.
I never ever in a million, zillion years wanted Hillary to win and I never said so.
Now, I have been pretty kind to you so far, and I am not gonna engage is one of the petty feuds that you love so much, but do not say that again.
-
@RoosGirl
What is wrong with you? You have made that accusation without naming me on several threads.
I have chosen not to respond to you because you have been vindictive and flat out crazy to me.
I never ever in a million, zillion years wanted Hillary to win and I never said so.
Now, I have been pretty kind to you so far, and I am not gonna engage is one of the petty feuds that you love so much, but do not say that again.
(https://stubbornthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/girl-fight-o.gif)
-
@RoosGirl
What is wrong with you? You have made that accusation without naming me on several threads.
I have chosen not to respond to you because you have been vindictive and flat out crazy to me.
I never ever in a million, zillion years wanted Hillary to win and I never said so.
Now, I have been pretty kind to you so far, and I am not gonna engage is one of the petty feuds that you love so much, but do not say that again.
Are you kidding? I quoted you You YOU *YOU*, from your own posting history, saying you would rather have Hillary win than Trump. Back up a few pages here and you'll see it.
-
(https://stubbornthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/girl-fight-o.gif)
Frank, do not get any popcorn or adult beverage out as I am not gonna fight with this woman.
She is obsessed with me and not in a good way.
-
Are you kidding? I quoted you You YOU *YOU*, from your own posting history, saying you would rather have Hillary win than Trump. Back up a few pages here and you'll see it.
(https://startoonist.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/catfight.gif)
-
Here, I went and found it for you
I was fairly calm when I was sure Hillary would win. If Trump has a glimmer of a chance, I won't be calm anymore. I really would prefer Hillary and the thought of a trump win makes me realize it all the more.
-
(https://stubbornthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/girl-fight-o.gif)
Relax, Frank. No cat fights for you tonight.
Look at what she did. Went back almost a year to find a post I made. This is not healthy but I'm not gonna be her psychiatrist.
-
(https://stubbornthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/girl-fight-o.gif)
LOL
-
Relax, Frank. No cat fights for you tonight.
Look at what she did. Went back almost a year to find a post I made. This is not healthy but I'm not gonna be her psychiatrist.
Yep, and you know why I went and grabbed that. Cause you were lying all over the place earlier in this thread and attacking @Smokin Joe , who is too much of a gentleman to tell you what I will.
-
Yep, and you know why I went and grabbed that. Cause you were lying all over the place earlier in this thread and attacking @Smokin Joe , who is too much of a gentleman to tell you what I will.
Well that is true. You are no gentleman. Point for you.
-
And when I say lying, I mean:
OMG. Now I have to go back, oh, wait, I remember. You were referring to Trump voters in a disparaging manner, claiming that they were voting with emotion and not with reason.
I think that is a way over-reach. Yes, some people really feel an emotional fervor for Trump, which I don't understand. But a LOT of people voted for him.
I would have voted for him even thought I bitterly opposed him all through the primaries. It would not have been an emotional decision but a common sense one.
We could not have afforded Hillary. She would have completed Obama's job of ruining the nation.
I would not let Trump hate prevent me from making rational decisions. I was for him because I wanted someone not named Hillary. Even if he had done nothing but been a place holder, we would have been better off.
But he has been much better than I expected. You can nitpick that original list posted here and we certainly haven't got much of what we want but we've got a lot. I think we can all agree that a big reason we haven't gotten some things is Congress, not the President.
-
What a bullshit accusation.
Look pal, you're the guy who insisted that if "we" (whomever that is supposed to be) lose the Presidency, we lose the SCOTUS.
The fact SCOTUS no longer operates within the confines of its Constitutional role and creates law by fiat and rewrites legislation to make things "legal" and both parties play the see-saw to stack the court with their own preferred ideologues to act towards their favor - and my calling you out on that score, equates my desire to have Secret Police dispensing "justice"? SCOTUS is not empowered to dispense "justice" - that is not its role. It was supposed to measure legal cases against the Constitution, not decide what is Constitutional based on their own ideological glasses.
But that is the role and game you and every other fear-mongering party hack throws in everyone's face to get them to support whatever party or political savior they demand we vote for.
The fact a single Justice has the balance of power in their hands as to deciding whether or not the Constitution is ignored or retained is nothing but a testament to how far off the mark we have already fallen into despotism and corruption.
You just want to keep perpetuating the shell game and circus we've been on for decades turning tighter and harder Left.
Enjoy the corruption then. You deserve it.
I have other plans that do not entail practicing insanity.
Our Founding Fathers obviously understood the frailties of human beings, and created a document designed as best as possible to make our new country better. Yes, we've had some internal bumps in the road....slavery, Civil War, Obama leftism, etc. I agree with ya about the left going too far. But we've always found a way out of it and America eventually winds up stronger than before.
The basic flaw in some of your remarks, is that you seem to think that political discourse is unhealthy. You couldn't be more wrong about that. Political discourse is alive and well, and hopefully will be with us for a long time because that means we are living in a healthy, vibrant, dynamic, growing society.
Political discourse isn't confined to between the parties, it is of course within a party as well. My view is let's work within the Republican Party as best we can, and that way we can accomplish things. We accomplish nothing by dividing our party into two parties, except taking us a step closer to the book 1984 about a far leftist society.
I politically live by the old saying, "I don't agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That old saying is fundamentally conservative. The problem with the today's left is they don't agree with that old saying. The left basically hates our First Amendment. They try as best they can to stifle and stop free speech, and they'd love to live in a 1984 type of society which Orwell stated the Soviet Union inspired him to write the book. There was no political discourse allowed with Big Brother.
-
And when I say lying, I mean:
"I think we can all agree that a big reason we haven't gotten some things is Congress, not the President."
Bingo
-
Helen Keller could see AND hear the difference....why is it, do you think, that the Far Left goes apoplectic at the mere mention of the name Trump?
I'll give you a hint...its not because they have any eerie similarities. Rather, they realize...quite astutely...that he is quite literally the opposite of all they advocate for and hold dear. Worse, like the countless conservatives they've cowed with their PC whip, Trump holds to his course like a mad bull after a red cape...they lose their cookies over him because they cannot stop or intimidate him.
Whatever he was in the past, he has become the antithesis of liberalism...and even they see it. Its astounding that anyone on the right could have so blinded themselves as to not see what's glaring in their face like 100 megaton flash.
I’m afraid the person and attitude you quoted is the reason why we only get politicians running for office and not normal, patriotic citizens. Because talented problem-solvers in business and industry are out there—Jack Welch types, who would be great in office but are scared off from running for office by the grinding, brutal campaign process and by the politics of personal destruction exhibited by your quotee.
We got lucky this time with Donald Trump.
-
Our Founding Fathers obviously understood the frailties of human beings, and created a document designed as best as possible to make our new country better. Yes, we've had some internal bumps in the road....slavery, Civil War, Obama leftism, etc. I agree with ya about the left going too far. But we've always found a way out of it and America eventually winds up stronger than before.
The basic flaw in some of your remarks, is that you seem to think that political discourse is unhealthy. You couldn't be more wrong about that. Political discourse is alive and well, and hopefully will be with us for a long time because that means we are living in a healthy, vibrant, dynamic, growing society.
Political discourse isn't confined to between the parties, it is of course within a party as well. My view is let's work within the Republican Party as best we can, and that way we can accomplish things. We accomplish nothing by dividing our party into two parties, except taking us a step closer to the book 1984 about a far leftist society.
I politically live by the old saying, "I don't agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That old saying fundamentally conservative. The problem with the today's left is they don't agree with that. The left basically hates our First Amendment. They try as best they can to stifle and stop free speech, and they'd love to live in a 1984 type of society which Orwell stated the Soviet Union inspired him to write the book. There was no political discourse allowed with Big Brother.
I guess you didn't get the memo. The GOP is already divided, and has been, at least since Goldwater. That schism has been growing with the tendency of the GOP over the last several decades to assume it will get more votes by moving to the middle and dumping the desires of its Conservative base. While, so far, it has held the line on some issues, mainly because to fail invites total revolt, it often has 'compromised' with the Left. Unfortunately, that compromise has not started with the positions of Conservatives, who are repeatedly and summarily thrown under the bus within a week after the votes are counted, but begins with the 'moderate' stance and compromises to the Left. THis has been going on for decades, so much so that is is almost standard for the GOP to fail to make reversals of Leftist policy changes and enactments on the most salient issues, despite years of promising to do so. The ACA is a recent and shining example of such failure, and instead of taking the promised Conservative stance to 'repeal, root and branch', began with a 'moderate' stance to compromise from.
This model ensures that the goals of Conservatives, if even acknowledged, will not only not be met, but are almost always summarily discarded as being "unrealistic" or "the perfect standing in the way of the good", when, in fact, they are nothing more nor less than what was promised.
This rubbish has been SOP in the GOP all my adult life (I have eight great grandchildren), and I, despite my penchant for enduring and misplaced loyalty, am finally done with it. It is obvious the GOP will not change, and continuing to squander time and resources trying to fight the Leftward inertia of such an organization is a losing proposition for a Conservative. Embracing a party which will not let me be heard and which has a history of embracing questionable policy or failing to remove it, is no political voice.
While there are those who will argue that a third party will go unheard, I am already unheard within the GOP. What do I lose? By putting my energy into a Party where I can be heard now, even if only by a few, and into the growth of that Party into something which can be heard by more, while carrying the right message, I hopefully build a foundation that , if not me, others can use to promote the Originalist adherence to the Constitution of these United States, a return to a limited Federal Government, and the restoration of Liberty.
-
My view is let's work within the Republican Party as best we can, and that way we can accomplish things. We accomplish nothing by dividing our party into two parties, [...].
I would invite you to enumerate the many, many Conservative positions fostered and/or pushed forward (accomplished) in the last 30 years.
EDIT:
No wait, I'll save you time:
*BUPKIS*
-
I guess you didn't get the memo. The GOP is already divided, and has been, at least since Goldwater. That schism has been growing with the tendency of the GOP over the last several decades to assume it will get more votes by moving to the middle and dumping the desires of its Conservative base. While, so far, it has held the line on some issues, mainly because to fail invites total revolt, it often has 'compromised' with the Left. Unfortunately, that compromise has not started with the positions of Conservatives, who are repeatedly and summarily thrown under the bus within a week after the votes are counted, but begins with the 'moderate' stance and compromises to the Left. THis has been going on for decades, so much so that is is almost standard for the GOP to fail to make reversals of Leftist policy changes and enactments on the most salient issues, despite years of promising to do so. The ACA is a recent and shining example of such failure, and instead of taking the promised Conservative stance to 'repeal, root and branch', began with a 'moderate' stance to compromise from.
This model ensures that the goals of Conservatives, if even acknowledged, will not only not be met, but are almost always summarily discarded as being "unrealistic" or "the perfect standing in the way of the good", when, in fact, they are nothing more nor less than what was promised.
This rubbish has been SOP in the GOP all my adult life (I have eight great grandchildren), and I, despite my penchant for enduring and misplaced loyalty, am finally done with it. It is obvious the GOP will not change, and continuing to squander time and resources trying to fight the Leftward inertia of such an organization is a losing proposition for a Conservative. Embracing a party which will not let me be heard and which has a history of embracing questionable policy or failing to remove it, is no political voice.
While there are those who will argue that a third party will go unheard, I am already unheard within the GOP. What do I lose? By putting my energy into a Party where I can be heard now, even if only by a few, and into the growth of that Party into something which can be heard by more, while carrying the right message, I hopefully build a foundation that , if not me, others can use to promote the Originalist adherence to the Constitution of these United States, a return to a limited Federal Government, and the restoration of Liberty.
This is utter foolishness, of course, but lots of us value our egos more than the idea of working as part of a coalition that can acquire and wield political power. Abandoning the GOP in favor of some silly third party is an exercise in vanity, but if that's what you need, then go for it. Those of us who remain can refocus on getting the incremental changes that will grow our economy, and make our citizens freer and safer.
I think some conservatives are miffed to discover that governing is such hard work. When it didn't matter, conservatives signed on to a "root and branch" repeal of the ACA, but now that we have power, the reality that millions were helped as well as harmed by ObamaCare means that those millions that were helped form a constituency for the law's preservation that requires the making of compromises. I supported each of the Republican attempts to reform the ACA, while fully cognizant of their flaws, because I saw that each make substantial if incremental progress towards addressing conservative priorities - more freedom and choices for individuals, less taxes and regulation for businesses, and the exchange of an unending mandate for block grants to the states to encourage innovation.
The bills failed in part because conservatives were unenthusiastic they didn't go far enough. Conservatives failed to rally and promote the reforms, and contributed to their demise. And now some conservatives are frustrated and want to leave the party. Politics is always easier when you're a backbencher, you can bray and pound your chest and even act irresponsible because, well, you don't have to take any responsibility.
-
I guess you didn't get the memo. The GOP is already divided, and has been, at least since Goldwater. That schism has been growing with the tendency of the GOP over the last several decades to assume it will get more votes by moving to the middle and dumping the desires of its Conservative base. While, so far, it has held the line on some issues, mainly because to fail invites total revolt, it often has 'compromised' with the Left. Unfortunately, that compromise has not started with the positions of Conservatives, who are repeatedly and summarily thrown under the bus within a week after the votes are counted, but begins with the 'moderate' stance and compromises to the Left. THis has been going on for decades, so much so that is is almost standard for the GOP to fail to make reversals of Leftist policy changes and enactments on the most salient issues, despite years of promising to do so. The ACA is a recent and shining example of such failure, and instead of taking the promised Conservative stance to 'repeal, root and branch', began with a 'moderate' stance to compromise from.
This model ensures that the goals of Conservatives, if even acknowledged, will not only not be met, but are almost always summarily discarded as being "unrealistic" or "the perfect standing in the way of the good", when, in fact, they are nothing more nor less than what was promised.
This rubbish has been SOP in the GOP all my adult life (I have eight great grandchildren), and I, despite my penchant for enduring and misplaced loyalty, am finally done with it. It is obvious the GOP will not change, and continuing to squander time and resources trying to fight the Leftward inertia of such an organization is a losing proposition for a Conservative. Embracing a party which will not let me be heard and which has a history of embracing questionable policy or failing to remove it, is no political voice.
While there are those who will argue that a third party will go unheard, I am already unheard within the GOP. What do I lose? By putting my energy into a Party where I can be heard now, even if only by a few, and into the growth of that Party into something which can be heard by more, while carrying the right message, I hopefully build a foundation that , if not me, others can use to promote the Originalist adherence to the Constitution of these United States, a return to a limited Federal Government, and the restoration of Liberty.
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6odkq8jNo1qbolbn.gif)
-
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6odkq8jNo1qbolbn.gif)
Make that a double!
-
I guess you didn't get the memo. The GOP is already divided, and has been, at least since Goldwater. That schism has been growing with the tendency of the GOP over the last several decades to assume it will get more votes by moving to the middle and dumping the desires of its Conservative base. While, so far, it has held the line on some issues, mainly because to fail invites total revolt, it often has 'compromised' with the Left. Unfortunately, that compromise has not started with the positions of Conservatives, who are repeatedly and summarily thrown under the bus within a week after the votes are counted, but begins with the 'moderate' stance and compromises to the Left. THis has been going on for decades, so much so that is is almost standard for the GOP to fail to make reversals of Leftist policy changes and enactments on the most salient issues, despite years of promising to do so. The ACA is a recent and shining example of such failure, and instead of taking the promised Conservative stance to 'repeal, root and branch', began with a 'moderate' stance to compromise from.
This model ensures that the goals of Conservatives, if even acknowledged, will not only not be met, but are almost always summarily discarded as being "unrealistic" or "the perfect standing in the way of the good", when, in fact, they are nothing more nor less than what was promised.
This rubbish has been SOP in the GOP all my adult life (I have eight great grandchildren), and I, despite my penchant for enduring and misplaced loyalty, am finally done with it. It is obvious the GOP will not change, and continuing to squander time and resources trying to fight the Leftward inertia of such an organization is a losing proposition for a Conservative. Embracing a party which will not let me be heard and which has a history of embracing questionable policy or failing to remove it, is no political voice.
While there are those who will argue that a third party will go unheard, I am already unheard within the GOP. What do I lose? By putting my energy into a Party where I can be heard now, even if only by a few, and into the growth of that Party into something which can be heard by more, while carrying the right message, I hopefully build a foundation that , if not me, others can use to promote the Originalist adherence to the Constitution of these United States, a return to a limited Federal Government, and the restoration of Liberty.
I mentioned the "memo" - political discourse
Sorry, but you're living in a fantasy land...I prefer reality.
I strongly believe in all the Tea Party ideas. However, if there had been an "official" Tea Party split from the Republican Party, we'd be saying President Hillary Clinton right now.
For those who think there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, you really need to better understand the Democratic Party, and smell the socialism.
But to each his own, you keep on dreaming about things that will never happen. I'll stay in the Republican Party and work to get things done.
-
For those who think there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, you really need to better understand the Democratic Party, and smell the socialism.
It's a shocking example of "The willing suspension of disbelief".
Anybody making such claims is an insult to morons everywhere.
-
I mentioned the "memo" - political discourse
Sorry, but you're living in a fantasy land...I prefer reality.
I strongly believe in all the Tea Party ideas. However, if there had been an "official" Tea Party split from the Republican Party, we'd be saying President Hillary Clinton right now.
For those who think there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, you really need to better understand the Democratic Party, and smell the socialism.
But to each his own, you keep on dreaming about things that will never happen. I'll stay in the Republican Party and work to get things done.
You do that friend! Hope it works out better for you than it has me over the last 40+ years! And I mean that sincerely!
BTW: I was STILL there right up to the moment they changed the rules at their last convention so that they can now prevent the nomination of any conservative candidate!
-
It's a shocking example of "The willing suspension of disbelief".
Anybody making such claims is an insult to morons everywhere.
(https://i.imgur.com/wng0CTD.jpg)
:whistle:
-
Make that a double!
http://www.orsonwelles.org/search/label/politics
Here's a "memo" for ya about Orson Welles. You really sure that this is the guy you want clapping for your point of view?
Welles was a self-identified “progressive” who was hounded for being a leftist and sometimes probed or followed by various Red Scare-oriented committees of the U.S. government.
He first threw his hat into the arena of politics and current events in October of 1943, speaking at the Third Free World Dinner at NYC’s Hotel Pennsylvania. Others taking the rostrum were a British Minister, a U.S. Colonel and a Chinese ambassador. He also gave two speeches in November on behalf of the American Free World Association, which was committed to the destruction of fascism.
As a companion to these appearances at conferences, Welles began publishing essays in the left-wing journal Free World, edited by Louis Dolivet, a French emigre who’d risen among the ranks of American and exile wartime politics.
Welles espoused the Free Worlders’ value of internationalism, which was positioned opposite the isolationism prevalent in America as the second Great War rumbled on. This stance garnered some accusations of communism--this time this perception of Welles at least came from some political stance of his--previously, accusations of communism had come from William Randolph Hearst as a desperate attempt to smear Welles.
To these accusations, Welles said, “communists know otherwise. I am an overpaid movie producer...I’m all for making money if it means earning it...surely my right to having more than enough is canceled if I don’t use that more to help those who have less. This sense of humanity’s interdependence antedates Karl Marx.”
In the fall of ‘44, Welles directed a smidgen of his boundless energy to campaigning for FDR’s reelection. This involved a whistle-stop tour at which he gave speeches. Barbara Leaming writes that “it was not simply the content of his speeches he labored to get absolutely right, but their spoken rhythms as well.” He would meet with local Democratic leaders in each town to receive relevant local references. At a Sept. 21, 1944 rally at Madison Square Garden, Welles got the honor of introducing Henry Wallace. Leaming writes, “Orson’s appearance before the great mass oddly recalled his impersonation of Kane delivering a similarly resounding election speech in the film.” Getting to the content, Leaming praises Welles’ use of “the word ‘they’ chanted incessantly to conjure up the Republican opposition” and “the mighty opening line, ‘These are great days’ spoken thrice to punctuate the text at strategic moments.” The speech was such a hit that, afterward, the crowd outside chanted “Wallace and Welles in the White House in 1948!”
-
http://www.orsonwelles.org/search/label/politics
Here's a "memo" for ya about Orson Welles. You really sure that this is the guy you want clapping for your point of view?
Welles was a self-identified “progressive” who was hounded for being a leftist and sometimes probed or followed by various Red Scare-oriented committees of the U.S. government.
He first threw his hat into the arena of politics and current events in October of 1943, speaking at the Third Free World Dinner at NYC’s Hotel Pennsylvania. Others taking the rostrum were a British Minister, a U.S. Colonel and a Chinese ambassador. He also gave two speeches in November on behalf of the American Free World Association, which was committed to the destruction of fascism.
As a companion to these appearances at conferences, Welles began publishing essays in the left-wing journal Free World, edited by Louis Dolivet, a French emigre who’d risen among the ranks of American and exile wartime politics.
Welles espoused the Free Worlders’ value of internationalism, which was positioned opposite the isolationism prevalent in America as the second Great War rumbled on. This stance garnered some accusations of communism--this time this perception of Welles at least came from some political stance of his--previously, accusations of communism had come from William Randolph Hearst as a desperate attempt to smear Welles.
To these accusations, Welles said, “communists know otherwise. I am an overpaid movie producer...I’m all for making money if it means earning it...surely my right to having more than enough is canceled if I don’t use that more to help those who have less. This sense of humanity’s interdependence antedates Karl Marx.”
In the fall of ‘44, Welles directed a smidgen of his boundless energy to campaigning for FDR’s reelection. This involved a whistle-stop tour at which he gave speeches. Barbara Leaming writes that “it was not simply the content of his speeches he labored to get absolutely right, but their spoken rhythms as well.” He would meet with local Democratic leaders in each town to receive relevant local references. At a Sept. 21, 1944 rally at Madison Square Garden, Welles got the honor of introducing Henry Wallace. Leaming writes, “Orson’s appearance before the great mass oddly recalled his impersonation of Kane delivering a similarly resounding election speech in the film.” Getting to the content, Leaming praises Welles’ use of “the word ‘they’ chanted incessantly to conjure up the Republican opposition” and “the mighty opening line, ‘These are great days’ spoken thrice to punctuate the text at strategic moments.” The speech was such a hit that, afterward, the crowd outside chanted “Wallace and Welles in the White House in 1948!”
*****rollingeyes*****
And sometimes a .gif of someone clapping is just a .gif of someone clapping commonly used in internet forums as a sign of approval of what the person typed.
-
http://www.orsonwelles.org/search/label/politics
Here's a "memo" for ya about Orson Welles. You really sure that this is the guy you want clapping for your point of view?
I know all about Orson Wells my friend! He was a founding member of the Fabian Society in London and he was not alone!
The meme is for the post I responded to and certainly NOT the person doing the clapping!
-
(https://i.imgur.com/wng0CTD.jpg)
:whistle:
Yea, yea, yea.
You're still not getting it. If someone is a large builder in New York City and they want to get things done and get permits and such with such a heavy Democratic Party influence...yes money talks, but it helps to spout off some garbage about supporting Democratic Party views so they think you are their friend.
But even if Trump believed that back then, which i'm convinced he truly did not, it isn't what he believes now, and that's all that matters with him as president.
-
I know all about Orson Wells my friend! He was a founding member of the Fabian Society in London and he was not alone!
The meme is for the post I responded to and certainly NOT the person doing the clapping!
We know what you did. So why not just have Jane Fonda clapping as well if only some clapping GIF matters, not the real person.
-
@roamer_1
@Frank Cannon
You know what? You're both right. I'm saying this sincerely. You're both right. We should have gotten better than we got.
You couldn't have gotten better than we got. There was no "better" that would have won. You could only have gotten a lot worse than what we got.
-
Yea, yea, yea.
You're still not getting it. If someone is a large builder in New York City and they want to get things done and get permits and such with such a heavy Democratic Party influence...yes money talks, but it helps to spout off some garbage about supporting Democratic Party views so they think you are their friend.
No I get it. A lot of people get it. Only we're not as willing as others to trash our values and beliefs as others are to follow someone like Trump as blindly as you do.
You're still making the same old tired excuses for the fact he's a Liberal Democrat masquerading as a Republican merely for the sake of getting elected.
But even if Trump believed that back then, which i'm convinced he truly did not, it isn't what he believes now, and that's all that matters with him as president.
So by your own line of reasoning...we shouldn't have believed Clinton when he said he "loathed" the military because all that mattered was what he said and did as Preisdent.
So we're supposed to just ignore everything he said about Sandy Hook...supporting Obama multiple donations to the Clinton Foundation and hardcore Democrat Marxists simply because he bullied his way into the White House?
No one is so blind as those that will not see.
-
We know what you did. So why not just have Jane Fonda clapping as well if only some clapping GIF matters, not the real person.
(http://1opinionatedwoman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/implied-facepalm-implied-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1259858393-300x225.jpg)
-
It's a shocking example of "The willing suspension of disbelief".
Anybody making such claims is an insult to morons everywhere.
Check out the nearest mirror.
-
(http://1opinionatedwoman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/implied-facepalm-implied-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1259858393-300x225.jpg)
Another good leftist - Al Gore's roommate.
Now you're piling on. LOL
-
Check out the nearest mirror.
I actually think @DCPatriot was sticking up for you.
But in your zeal to crap on every rug in the place you missed that salient point.
-
Another good leftist - Al Gore's roommate.
Now you're piling on. LOL
And you're turning out to be nothing more than an annoying troll...so intend on being a pest you insult even those that stick up for you.
-
We know what you did. So why not just have Jane Fonda clapping as well if only some clapping GIF matters, not the real person.
I don't know you well, @stephen50right, but that response is just plain dopey.
That gif is priceless, and it has NOTHING to do with anyone's politics.
Of course, even not knowing you, I know you know that, so stop with the dopey responses to serious people, OK?? **nononono*
-
No I get it. A lot of people get it. Only we're not as willing as others to trash our values and beliefs as others are to follow someone like Trump as blindly as you do.
You're still making the same old tired excuses for the fact he's a Liberal Democrat masquerading as a Republican merely for the sake of getting elected.
So by your own line of reasoning...we shouldn't have believed Clinton when he said he "loathed" the military because all that mattered was what he said and did as Preisdent.
So we're supposed to just ignore everything he said about Sandy Hook...supporting Obama multiple donations to the Clinton Foundation and hardcore Democrat Marxists simply because he bullied his way into the White House?
No one is so blind as those that will not see.
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
BTW: Trump has been a NRA member for a very long time, and also his two sons are NRA members. That doesn't sound like a liberal democrat to me. I'm sure at those building permit hearings in NYC, he didn't mention that. LOL
-
I think some conservatives are miffed to discover that governing is such hard work. When it didn't matter, conservatives signed on to a "root and branch" repeal of the ACA, but now that we have power, the reality that millions were helped as well as harmed by ObamaCare means that those millions that were helped form a constituency for the law's preservation that requires the making of compromises.
I think you are misreading our perception of this. The fact that "our" side could vote over and over again to repeal Obamacare back when they knew Obama would veto the legislation, all to refuse to cast the very same vote they had already cast when they have a President that will sign it, has nothing to do with the difficulties of "governing".
What we see is a cartel of our own party that was lying to us before, and now that their excuse has been stripped away, they have no choice but show their true feelings/colors.
There are those among us that believe the Republican support for Obamacare is due to the belief that it benefits so many big businesses who can transfer all their current responsibilities for insuring their people over to the government. In other words, it helps the profit margin of many corporations.
So far as the millions who were "helped" by Obamacare, it isn't their F***ing money, and they have no right to be helped by the government at the rest of our expense.
We should not be compromising with people who benefit from what is essentially thievery or slavery, depending on how you view the people who are forced to pay the bills.
-
I think you are misreading our perception of this. The fact that "our" side could vote over and over again to repeal Obamacare back when they knew Obama would veto the legislation, all to refuse to cast the very same vote they had already cast when they have a President that will sign it, has nothing to do with the difficulties of "governing".
What we see is a cartel of our own party that was lying to us before, and now that their excuse has been stripped away, they have no choice but show their true feelings/colors.
There are those among us that believe the Republican support for Obamacare is due to the belief that it benefits so many big businesses who can transfer all their current responsibilities for insuring their people over to the government. In other words, it helps the profit margin of many corporations.
So far as the millions who were "helped" by Obamacare, it isn't their F***ing money, and they have no right to be helped by the government at the rest of our expense.
We should not be compromising with people who benefit from what is essentially thievery or slavery, depending on how you view the people who are forced to pay the bills.
Exactly.
-
I don't know you well, @stephen50right, but that response is just plain dopey.
That gif is priceless, and it has NOTHING to do with anyone's politics.
Of course, even not knowing you, I know you know that, so stop with the dopey responses to serious people, OK?? **nononono*
It was hyperbole to make a point. Something Trump does all the time.
Grow a sense of humor - it will help you to understand and like Trump.
-
Yea, yea, yea.
You're still not getting it. If someone is a large builder in New York City and they want to get things done and get permits and such with such a heavy Democratic Party influence...yes money talks, but it helps to spout off some garbage about supporting Democratic Party views so they think you are their friend.
But even if Trump believed that back then, which i'm convinced he truly did not, it isn't what he believes now, and that's all that matters with him as president.
Same point I was gonna make. Deeds, not words.
-
It was hyperbole to make a point. Something Trump does all the time.
Grow a sense of humor - it will help you to understand and like Trump.
My sense of humor surpassed Trump's when I was 13. (And I've taught elementary and Jr. High boys, so I understand his kind of humor well).
btw, nothing you said was even remotely funny, by anyone's definition.
But carry on. It's a free forum..........
-
You're still making the same old tired excuses for the fact he's a Liberal Democrat masquerading as a Republican merely for the sake of getting elected.
The evidence would indicate he is a Conservative Republican who was masquerading as a Liberal Democrat. You seem fixated on his past words rather than his current deeds.
-
Same point I was gonna make. Deeds, not words.
Pretense, not character......
-
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Nope not hardly. We're just tired of the Republican party more and more turning into a sad copy of the Democrat Party and doing nothing to represent the voters.
BTW: Trump has been a NRA member for a very long time, and also his two sons are NRA members. That doesn't sound like a liberal democrat to me. I'm sure at those building permit hearings in NYC, he didn't mention that. LOL
Michael Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA.
Just sayin...
-
Pretense, not character......
Real changes. Not pretend changes.
-
The evidence would indicate he is a Conservative Republican who was masquerading as a Liberal Democrat. You seem fixated on his past words rather than his current deeds.
Current deeds like working with Reid and Pelosi? OR current deeds like claiming Obamacare was dead and still providing $100 million in funding to keep it going?
What about his cave on DACA?
Those the kind of current deeds you're talking about?
-
Real changes. Not pretend changes.
Trump vows to repeal ObamaCare on day one of presidency
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5271477266001/?#sp=show-clips
By Bob Woodward and Robert Costa April 5, 2016
Donald Trump says he would force Mexico to pay for a border wall as president by threatening to cut off the flow of billions of dollars in payments that immigrants send home to the country, an idea that could decimate the Mexican economy and set up an unprecedented showdown between the United States and a key regional ally.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-would-seek-to-block-money-transfers-to-force-mexico-to-fund-border-wall/2016/04/05/c0196314-fa7c-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html?utm_term=.317942388372
President Trump pleaded that Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto stop stating that his country would not pay for a wall on the border in their first telephone discussion, according to a transcript of the Jan. 27 call obtained by The Washington Post.
"You cannot say that to the press,” Trump told Nieto, urging him to refrain from the public statements because of the political damage it would impose on Trump.
“If you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that,” Trump told Nieto, according to the transcript obtained by the Post.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345117-trump-asked-mexican-president-to-stop-publicly-saying-his-government
Real changes versus pretend changes...right? :whistle:
-
Current deeds like working with Reid and Pelosi? OR current deeds like claiming Obamacare was dead and still providing $100 million in funding to keep it going?
What about his cave on DACA?
Those the kind of current deeds you're talking about?
Are any of those deeds? Which one of them has actually happened?
-
Yea, yea, yea.
You're still not getting it. If someone is a large builder in New York City and they want to get things done and get permits and such with such a heavy Democratic Party influence...yes money talks, but it helps to spout off some garbage about supporting Democratic Party views so they think you are their friend.
But even if Trump believed that back then, which i'm convinced he truly did not, it isn't what he believes now, and that's all that matters with him as president.
You’re absolutely right. My associate practice was in a heavily Jewish democrat neighborhood in Brooklyn. The head doc was plugged into local democrat party politics. When he or my patients brought up politics I would nod as if in agreement, but keep my mouth shut otherwise.
I learned it was pointless to raise objections with wild-eyed looney democrats, it wouldn’t be good for my business.
-
Are any of those deeds? Which one of them has actually happened?
All of them.
-
Trump vows to repeal ObamaCare on day one of presidency
He foolishly expected congress to present him with the bill they voted for over and over again while Obama was President.
In law, there is this concept that you cannot be held responsible for failure to preform your contractual duty if it has become impossible, through no fault of your own, to fulfill that contractual duty.
The office of the Presidency was ready able and willing to do the deed. The reason it did not get repealed was because of backstabbers in Congress, not Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-would-seek-to-block-money-transfers-to-force-mexico-to-fund-border-wall/2016/04/05/c0196314-fa7c-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html?utm_term=.317942388372
This just shows naivete. Who pays for Trump's hotels? If you say "Trump", that just means you don't understand how this works at the most basic level.
I believe a wall will get built, and I believe that the costs will be recouped from the Mexicans who need to get past the wall for various reasons. (Sending money back to their families in Mexico for example.)
Real changes versus pretend changes...right? :whistle:
Right, but without the irrational sarcasm and impatience.
-
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
BTW: Trump has been a NRA member for a very long time, and also his two sons are NRA members. That doesn't sound like a liberal democrat to me. I'm sure at those building permit hearings in NYC, he didn't mention that. LOL
Very true.
BTW, what do yo think about being called a troll by someone who disagrees with your point of view? Personally, I think it’s chicken shit and a sure sign someone is losing the argument.
-
In case anyone here would like a 21st reason to fight against the left, visit this thread: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,286275.0.html
-
All of them.
"Working" with Reid and Pelosi? Reid was out of office before Trump became President, so I find it hard to understand why Trump would be working with Reid. So far as Pelosi is concerned, Trump is just using the same old "rope a dope" on her that he uses on everyone else. So far as I know, they haven't done anything.
DACA has happened? Did I miss it? All I see in the news is that he has ended the program. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-dreamers-daca-immigration-announcement-n798686)
Trump has provided 100 Million in funding to keep Obamacare going? (http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/13/news/economy/trump-obamacare-subsidies/index.html) I'm not seeing it when I do a search, so perhaps you could give a link or something so we can see for ourselves if this accusation of yours has any merit.
Lord knows, we wouldn't want to apply the same exacting standard of truth to you that you seem insistent on applying to Trump. If we did, we would already be calling you a liar.
-
I mentioned the "memo" - political discourse
Sorry, but you're living in a fantasy land...I prefer reality.
I strongly believe in all the Tea Party ideas. However, if there had been an "official" Tea Party split from the Republican Party, we'd be saying President Hillary Clinton right now.
For those who think there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, you really need to better understand the Democratic Party, and smell the socialism.
But to each his own, you keep on dreaming about things that will never happen. I'll stay in the Republican Party and work to get things done.
Amen to your practical common sense, sir! So refreshing to read it, on very rare occasions, on this board.
-
Real changes. Not pretend changes.
Says a true believer..... :shrug:
-
You’re absolutely right. My associate practice was in a heavily Jewish democrat neighborhood in Brooklyn. The head doc was plugged into local democrat party politics. When he or my patients brought up politics I would nod as if in agreement, but keep my mouth shut otherwise.
I learned it was pointless to raise objections with wild-eyed looney democrats, it wouldn’t be good for my business.
I grew up in the NYC and Philly area, and so it's easy for me to understand Trump. The humor is similar to the TV show Seinfeld in a number of ways, as Larry David grew up in Brooklyn. Seinfeld became a big hit, arguably the most popular sit-com of all time, so obviously many around the country also enjoyed the show's humor.
Trump over the years grew in popularity as well...in fact popular enough to be elected POTUS. I haven't read "Art of the Deal" but I've read many excerpts from it, and that is all part of Trump. Negotiating, schmoozing, or whatever in a smart calculated way to get what ya want.
The good news is that Trump is putting America First, meaning the American people first. He has proven that from anyone in his administration with even a hint of corruption or incompetence, he gets rid of them as quickly as possible. I've never seen that before in a president, whereby they normally too often stay loyal to those they've appointed even when it's quite obvious the corrupt or incompetent individual should be fired.
It's going to be a great eight years, and I believe that many, perhaps not all but many, here and elsewhere who are conservatives and don't support Trump, will eventually come around and support him. Perhaps, they'll never like him personally and that's okay. A great president doesn't need to win a popularity contest.
George Washington as a general executed some American soldiers for various reasons. I doubt if he could win the presidency today having done that as a general. Patton was severely reprimanded just for slapping a few soldiers in WW2. Without question, George Washington was our greatest president. In my opinion, Trump has the potential to become a great president. We shall see if that happens, and I think he will.
-
Amen to your practical common sense, sir! So refreshing to read it, on very rare occasions, on this board.
I appreciate the nice compliment. Thank you!
I think many on here will eventually come around and support Trump. I think eight years of the cancerous malignant leftist disease Obama really motivated them to see Cruz or Rubio win, and they were very disappointed when Trump thrashed them in the Republican primary.
I like Cruz and Rubio, a lot...but sorry to say both of them are not POTUS material. They just aren't. They are good senators and that's where they need to stay. I'd really like to see Cruz or Rubio become Senate majority leader one day, and considering their age and energy, I think that is a possibility.
-
I grew up in the NYC and Philly area, and so it's easy for me to understand Trump. The humor is similar to the TV show Seinfeld in a number of ways, as Larry David grew up in Brooklyn. Seinfeld became a big hit, arguably the most popular sit-com of all time, so obviously many around the country also enjoyed the show's humor.
Trump over the years grew in popularity as well...in fact popular enough to be elected POTUS. I haven't read "Art of the Deal" but I've read many excerpts from it, and that is all part of Trump. Negotiating, schmoozing, or whatever in a smart calculated way to get what ya want.
The good news is that Trump is putting America First, meaning the American people first. He has proven that from anyone in his administration with even a hint of corruption or incompetence, he gets rid of them as quickly as possible. I've never seen that before in a president, whereby they normally too often stay loyal to those they've appointed even when it's quite obvious the corrupt or incompetent individual should be fired.
It's going to be a great eight years, and I believe that many, perhaps not all but many, here and elsewhere who are conservatives and don't support Trump, will eventually come around and support him. Perhaps, they'll never like him personally and that's okay. A great president doesn't need to win a popularity contest.
George Washington as a general executed some American soldiers for various reasons. I doubt if he could win the presidency today having done that as a general. Patton was severely reprimanded just for slapping a few soldiers in WW2. Without question, George Washington was our greatest president. In my opinion, Trump has the potential to become a great president. We shall see if that happens, and I think he will.
Overall I agree with you about Donald Trump. I think history will be kinder to Pres. Trump than the folks here on this board.
I just wish however Trump would replace Sessions with a seasoned, pit bull prosecutor. Sessions has spent too many years “working” as a legislator. But let’s face it, there isn’t much work involved in a senator’s job. We need a younger, tougher, hungrier AG during these troubled times.
-
Says a true believer..... :shrug:
A true believer in real change. I am a Cruz supporter who reluctantly went over to Trump because it was the best way to oppose Hitlery.
-
Overall I agree with you about Donald Trump. I think history will be kinder to Pres. Trump than the folks here on this board.
I just wish however Trump would replace Sessions with a seasoned, pit bull prosecutor. Sessions has spent too many years “working” as a legislator. But let’s face it, there isn’t much work involved in a senator’s job. We need a younger, tougher, hungrier AG during these troubled times.
There will be dynamic change in the Trump administration over the next seven years. Probably Trump was a bit too loyal to those who helped him win the presidency, and that's understandable. But Trump has shown that he has no problem whatsoever firing them if they can't do the job properly.
I don't disagree with ya about Sessions. I like Sessions but you're right, an AG as you described would be better. We'll see what happens, but unless Sessions really messes up something, i think he's likely to stay at that job for a number of years.
-
It was hyperbole to make a point. Something Trump does all the time.
Grow a sense of humor - it will help you to understand and like Trump.
888high58888 @stephen50right
-
I actually think @DCPatriot was sticking up for you.
But in your zeal to crap on every rug in the place you missed that salient point.
LOL!....it's too hard to tell the 'good guys' from the 'bad guys' these days.
-
I think you are misreading our perception of this. The fact that "our" side could vote over and over again to repeal Obamacare back when they knew Obama would veto the legislation, all to refuse to cast the very same vote they had already cast when they have a President that will sign it, has nothing to do with the difficulties of "governing".
It has everything to do with the reality of governing. Backbenchers can pretend to rip up the ACA without facing the consequences. Those tasked with governing have to contend with the millions who have been helped by it, and the constituency created by a runaway entitlement program.
There are those among us that believe the Republican support for Obamacare is due to the belief that it benefits so many big businesses who can transfer all their current responsibilities for insuring their people over to the government. In other words, it helps the profit margin of many corporations.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Big business would just as soon have single payer. The ACA doesn't lower their costs, it raises them, and taxes them if they decide to not cover their employees. With single payer, health insurance is paid for by taxpayers, not big business - they'd be able to compete more effectively on the world stage.
So far as the millions who were "helped" by Obamacare, it isn't their F***ing money, and they have no right to be helped by the government at the rest of our expense.
We should not be compromising with people who benefit from what is essentially thievery or slavery, depending on how you view the people who are forced to pay the bills.
That horse is out of the barn. The time for spitting on the working poor was before the ACA was enacted. Now the ACA has a constituency - unwinding it requires some compromises, and, hopefully, incremental progress toward conservative policy goals.
Thanks to you and yours for saving ObamaCare! Can you deal with reality, sir? Here it is - the time for conservatives to have the upper hand has come and gone. Next up is a bipartisan bailout bill - you can read about it this morning's paper - check it out and see whether you think it advances conservative priorities better than the bills you bitterly opposed because they weren't "root and branch" repeal.
-
What a sweet ray of sunshine this morning....
-
What a sweet ray of sunshine this morning....
Yeah, the sick looking cat on your avatar is sunshine personified. :seeya:
-
But we've always found a way out of it and America eventually winds up stronger than before.
Having thrown out our core foundations as a people and a culture, only ruin lies ahead of us. The further this culture gets away from God and the Bible as a society, the further into tyranny we will go. Liberty as intended for us, is a construct of biblical morality and more secular and hedonist we go - the greater despotism we will suffer. If you read the Founders - you would find a commonality in their warnings about keeping a republic: if this people will not be governed by God, they will be ruled by the tyranny of men. We are already comfortable with that, and more than half the population sees government as their god.
We are not going to become 'stronger than before' having discarded our only sure foundation for liberty's existence. Not unless you want to throw empire and rulers by force as a measure of greatness.
The basic flaw in some of your remarks, is that you seem to think that political discourse is unhealthy.
Where do you come up with this shit? Where did I say anything about political discourse being healthy? I'm simply telling you that your party is dead is to me and as corrupt and Statist as the Democrat Party. How is that declaring political discourse unhealthy?
Look pal, it was the TRUMP fanatics who threatened us with hanging or firing squad for treason simply because of our refusal to vote for Trump or our criticisms of him - so if you want to tackle the subject of unhealthy political discourse - you can start there.
My view is let's work within the Republican Party as best we can, and that way we can accomplish things.
Knock yourself out. I'm done practicing insanity and want nothing to do with your party or anyone running in it.
We accomplish nothing by dividing our party into two parties, except taking us a step closer to the book 1984 about a far leftist society.
Your party is already corrupted, compromised and taken over by statists who rewrote the rules at the last two conventions to prevent any possible change in the Leftist-Compromise direction of your party. The Republican Party is already the party of Big Brother.
You simply refuse to see it.
-
It has everything to do with the reality of governing. Backbenchers can pretend to rip up the ACA without facing the consequences. Those tasked with governing have to contend with the millions who have been helped by it, and the constituency created by a runaway entitlement program.
You would think rational people could recognize that entitlement programs are unsustainable and will eventually result in our collapse, and therefore bite the bullet and do the hard thing which they pretended to do when they knew they would suffer no consequences for it.
So what? Would you rather have single payer and the evil insurance companies out of it completely? What's wrong with insurance companies - they provide a service many of us need and earn a profit. You call yourself a conservative?
I know you can't read everything I write, (more's the pity) so you can't know that I oppose insurance, and especially medical insurance on a philosophical basis. I want insurance out of health care period. I perceive "insurance" (health insurance is not really insurance) as a major cause of much of the problems with health care costs and the health industry in general.
To overly simplify my point, "insurance" has created artificial market conditions (people other than the recipients paying the bills) that have greatly inflated the costs of health care.
Now you may say it is unrealistic to go there from what we have now, but I say that nevertheless it should be our goal to separate health care from "insurance", and we shouldn't be doing anything which reinforces the connection between the two.
That horse is out of the barn.
Do you know what is the proper solution to having the horse out of the barn? Putting the horse back in the barn! Burning down the barn because the horse left is just dumb.
The time for spitting on the working poor was before the ACA was enacted. Now the ACA has a constituency - unwinding it requires some compromises, and, hopefully, incremental progress toward conservative policy goals.
Yes it now has an entitlement constituency, but if we don't engage in this entitlement fight now, over this, then when? and over what?
Wreck the constituency by removing the subsidies, as Trump has done. Make a bigger constituency against it, as Trump is trying to do by removing the subsidies.
Thanks to you and yours for saving ObamaCare!
It is the squishes that saved Obamacare by mitigating it's damage by granting exceptions and spreading it out over a longer period of time. Strategic thinkers would have demanded it be implemented immediately with no exceptions and with all the horrible crushing costs that it will eventually implement.
General Grant understood this over a century ago.
" I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution."
Can you deal with reality, sir?
Can you? The numbers don't work, and will never work. We have to acknowledge the reality of the "cold equations."
-
You would think rational people could recognize that entitlement programs are unsustainable and will eventually result in our collapse, and therefore bite the bullet and do the hard thing which they pretended to do when they knew they would suffer no consequences for it.
That's what the GOP tried to do, by replacing an entitlement program with block grants to the states. It was defeated by conservative opposition who didn't think it went far enough.
Now we're past conservative-driven solutions. The centrists will craft the inevitable ACA bailout.
-
I mentioned the "memo" - political discourse
Sorry, but you're living in a fantasy land...I prefer reality.
I strongly believe in all the Tea Party ideas. However, if there had been an "official" Tea Party split from the Republican Party, we'd be saying President Hillary Clinton right now.
For those who think there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, you really need to better understand the Democratic Party, and smell the socialism.
But to each his own, you keep on dreaming about things that will never happen. I'll stay in the Republican Party and work to get things done.
I didn't say there wasn't any difference between Hillary and Donald, just that neither is Conservative enough for my tastes. One is a simple "No", the other a "Hell no!" and I didn't vote for either.
My vote is something that will have to be earned. I will not give it out of fear of the other candidate. That just isn't enough any more. For decades, we have been mollified with the "If you get 80%" BS, and we were lucky to get 20.
The thing we have been dreaming about that will never happen is the GOP honor its promises made in the heat of electoral coitus.
I'm not voting for liars.
-
You would think rational people could recognize that entitlement programs are unsustainable and will eventually result in our collapse,
They don't care, as long as they get theirs. They are perfectly happy with letting our children and grandchildren have to wade through the economic ruins of a wasteland both parties and their supporters have enabled and accelerated.
I want insurance out of health care period. I perceive "insurance" (health insurance is not really insurance) as a major cause of much of the problems with health care costs and the health industry in general.
I hold the exact same view in regards to Withholding.
That too is the major cause of much of the problems with government spending us into trillions of $$ into unrecoverable debt.
If the American people had to write a check to the IRS each year, I would think D.C. would be a smoking ruin about now and most of us would enjoy a whole lot more liberty.
-
LOL!....it's too hard to tell the 'good guys' from the 'bad guys' these days.
@DCPatriot you and I may be diametrically opposed when it comes to Trump...but I can tell when you're in agreement with someone. LOL!
:beer:
-
Having thrown out our core foundations as a people and a culture, only ruin lies ahead of us. The further this culture gets away from God and the Bible as a society, the further into tyranny we will go. Liberty as intended for us, is a construct of biblical morality and more secular and hedonist we go - the greater despotism we will suffer. If you read the Founders - you would find a commonality in their warnings about keeping a republic: if this people will not be governed by God, they will be ruled by the tyranny of men. We are already comfortable with that, and more than half the population sees government as their god.
We are not going to become 'stronger than before' having discarded our only sure foundation for liberty's existence. Not unless you want to throw empire and rulers by force as a measure of greatness.
Where do you come up with this shit? Where did I say anything about political discourse being healthy? I'm simply telling you that your party is dead is to me and as corrupt and Statist as the Democrat Party. How is that declaring political discourse unhealthy?
Look pal, it was the TRUMP fanatics who threatened us with hanging or firing squad for treason simply because of our refusal to vote for Trump or our criticisms of him - so if you want to tackle the subject of unhealthy political discourse - you can start there.
Knock yourself out. I'm done practicing insanity and want nothing to do with your party or anyone running in it.
Your party is already corrupted, compromised and taken over by statists who rewrote the rules at the last two conventions to prevent any possible change in the Leftist-Compromise direction of your party. The Republican Party is already the party of Big Brother.
You simply refuse to see it.
<<< Look pal, it was the TRUMP fanatics who threatened us with hanging or firing squad for treason simply because of our refusal to vote for Trump or our criticisms of him - so if you want to tackle the subject of unhealthy political discourse - you can start there. >>>
Ronald Reagan, you may recall him, his pic is at the top of this fine forum stated, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."
For the "TRUMP fanatics" as you say it...it was a call for Republicans to come together to defeat Hillary Clinton.
Political discourse is healthy, and Donald Trump winning proved that...but there comes a time when enough is enough...particularly on election day. I like the way some Cruz supporters on here stated that they voted for Donald Trump. That was the smart thing, and the necessary thing to do. Crooked Hillary in the White House needed not to happen.
More on Reagan's quote - Pasted from Wiki:
While popularized by Reagan, "The Eleventh Commandment" was created by California Republican Party Chairman Gaylord Parkinson. In his 1990 autobiography An American Life, Reagan attributed the rule to Parkinson, explained its origin, and claimed to have followed it:[3]
The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.
-
<<< Look pal, it was the TRUMP fanatics who threatened us with hanging or firing squad for treason simply because of our refusal to vote for Trump or our criticisms of him - so if you want to tackle the subject of unhealthy political discourse - you can start there. >>>
Ronald Reagan, you may recall him, his pic is at the top of this fine forum stated, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."
For the "TRUMP fanatics" as you say it...it was a call for Republicans to come together to defeat Hillary Clinton.
Political discourse is healthy, and Donald Trump winning proved that...but there comes a time when enough is enough...particularly on election day. I like the way some Cruz supporters on here stated that they voted for Donald Trump. That was the smart thing, and the necessary thing to do. Crooked Hillary in the White House needed not to happen.
More on Reagan's quote - Pasted from Wiki:
While popularized by Reagan, "The Eleventh Commandment" was created by California Republican Party Chairman Gaylord Parkinson. In his 1990 autobiography An American Life, Reagan attributed the rule to Parkinson, explained its origin, and claimed to have followed it:[3]
The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.
It's sad that Trump himself pissesd on that "11th Commandment" from the moment he announced he was running...as did the blind followers who went out and engaged in a scorched earth policy against anyone who didn't fall in line and march in lockstep to the Ttrump dogma.
-
Ronald Reagan, you may recall him, his pic is at the top of this fine forum stated, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."
Your party is no longer the party that Reagan represented. It is not even a shadow of that party.
And you should know, I will do more than speak ill of your party. I am going to live up to being 'the enemy' your compatriots declared me to be for daring to criticize your prince and refusing to vote for the one decreed to be our political savior.
I'm working to get as many Conservatives to dump your failed party and get them into something new.
For the "TRUMP fanatics" as you say it...it was a call for Republicans to come together to defeat Hillary Clinton.
I do not vote for liberals or lifelong liberal Democrats masquerading as Conservatives in any party EVER. It made not a whit's worth of difference to me whether Clinton or Trump sat on the throne. I saw them as one and the same.
Political discourse is healthy, and Donald Trump winning proved that...
Oh yes. His Twitter rants are paragons of virtue for healthy 'political discourse'. What an ultra maroon!
but there comes a time when enough is enough...particularly on election day.
Well, the shaming and death threats from your fellows that I vote the way you demanded was ignored by my person and family. Perhaps next time you will want to put guns to our heads and make sure we vote the way you demand?
While popularized by Reagan, "The Eleventh Commandment" ...Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.
That Commandment was nullified in total in my estimation when Mitch McConnell looked at us at the Fancy Farm picnic, told us Tea Party Conservatives supporting Bevin to shut up, sit down or get Punched in the nose". The amount of vitriol your party leadership spewed upon Conservatives in the Republican Party showcased that the 11th Commandment was rescinded by the Establishment and only applies to the grassroots towards the rulers of the party. Trump himself has shown us that this "commandment" no longer applies.
So pound sand pal. I plan on speaking ill of your party and it's leaders. Your party is just another arm of the Statist Democrats.
And my mission is to help as many people take off their blinders to see it as such and get them into something new.
-
Yeah, the sick looking cat on your avatar is sunshine personified. :seeya:
Yes, I agree. I was looking for a Halloween cat for my Avatar, and that one I found is doubleplus ungood. I'll choose another one soon...There is such a thing as TOO revolting, I found out.
-
That's what the GOP tried to do, by replacing an entitlement program with block grants to the states. It was defeated by conservative opposition who didn't think it went far enough.
Now we're past conservative-driven solutions. The centrists will craft the inevitable ACA bailout.
Or, Trump's actions will increase pressure on the populace, and pretty soon Senators who were opposed to the idea of repeal will find the moral courage (just kidding, they will sh*t a brick because the public has become furious about Obamacare) to repeal the thing.
Trump has stuck a screwdriver into an arterial vein of Obamacare. It will bleed out, and then people will want to toss out the corpse.
-
They don't care, as long as they get theirs. They are perfectly happy with letting our children and grandchildren have to wade through the economic ruins of a wasteland both parties and their supporters have enabled and accelerated.
I have come to believe that this is indeed the case. I used to think Democrats and big spending government types were just stupid. Now I see them as intelligent enough to understand what will be the consequences of their actions, but lacking in sufficient morality to care.
I hold the exact same view in regards to Withholding.
That too is the major cause of much of the problems with government spending us into trillions of $$ into unrecoverable debt.
If the American people had to write a check to the IRS each year, I would think D.C. would be a smoking ruin about now and most of us would enjoy a whole lot more liberty.
Have long said this needs to be done. Also "Tax Day" needs to be moved to Election day.
-
@DCPatriot you and I may be diametrically opposed when it comes to Trump...but I can tell when you're in agreement with someone. LOL!
:beer:
:beer:
-
Also "Tax Day" needs to be moved to Election day.
The day before will suffice NICELY.
-
The day before will suffice NICELY.
Actually, any time in the week before would likely do the trick.
-
A true believer in real change. I am a Cruz supporter who reluctantly went over to Trump because it was the best way to oppose Hitlery.
And somewhere along the line, you have become a Crusader for a populist personality, and not conservatism.
Not saying you don't have the right to be one, just noticing that you are one. :patriot:
-
And somewhere along the line, you have become a Crusader for a populist personality, and not conservatism.
Really ... so populism can't be conservative? Fascinating.
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160212160350-08-campaign-slogans-super-169.jpg) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg/220px-Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg)
-
Really ... so populism can't be conservative? Fascinating.
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160212160350-08-campaign-slogans-super-169.jpg) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg/220px-Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg)
888high58888
-
We know what you did. So why not just have Jane Fonda clapping as well if only some clapping GIF matters, not the real person.
Because I don't happen to have one of those handy!
You carry on trying to change the Republican party from within! Hopefully you will have more success with that than I did!
-
888high58888
Honestly, have today's conservatives no memory? When did "populist" become such a dirty word?
Ronald Reagan was the quintessential populist---this is what gave birth to all those "Reagan democrats".
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160212160350-08-campaign-slogans-super-169.jpg)
@DCPatriot
-
Honestly, have today's conservatives no memory? When did "populist" become such a dirty word?
Ronald Reagan was the quintessential populist---this is what gave birth to all those "Reagan democrats".
@DCPatriot
Consider who posted it. Hates Trump.
Riding on the coattails of McCain's "spurious populism", no doubt.
-
Really ... so populism can't be conservative? Fascinating.
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160212160350-08-campaign-slogans-super-169.jpg) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg/220px-Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg)
I think she means Trump can’t be considered conservative because, well, you know, it’s Trump. I hope I didn’t misstate that but that’s how it appears to this humble servant of Lord Trump. :silly:
-
It's sad that Trump himself pissesd on that "11th Commandment" from the moment he announced he was running...as did the blind followers who went out and engaged in a scorched earth policy against anyone who didn't fall in line and march in lockstep to the Ttrump dogma.
I'll give ya that one - Trump did do that. But after Trump received the nomination, he was as cordial as could be towards all the beaten Republican candidates. Sadly, Trump did not get a friendly congrats from some of them, and so Trump responded in kind.
You must admit...Ted Cruz was a bit out of line with his speech at the convention, and he got roundly booed for it. What was Trump supposed to do, hug him right after that?
-
Your party is no longer the party that Reagan represented. It is not even a shadow of that party.
And you should know, I will do more than speak ill of your party. I am going to live up to being 'the enemy' your compatriots declared me to be for daring to criticize your prince and refusing to vote for the one decreed to be our political savior.
I'm working to get as many Conservatives to dump your failed party and get them into something new.
I do not vote for liberals or lifelong liberal Democrats masquerading as Conservatives in any party EVER. It made not a whit's worth of difference to me whether Clinton or Trump sat on the throne. I saw them as one and the same.
Oh yes. His Twitter rants are paragons of virtue for healthy 'political discourse'. What an ultra maroon!
Well, the shaming and death threats from your fellows that I vote the way you demanded was ignored by my person and family. Perhaps next time you will want to put guns to our heads and make sure we vote the way you demand?
That Commandment was nullified in total in my estimation when Mitch McConnell looked at us at the Fancy Farm picnic, told us Tea Party Conservatives supporting Bevin to shut up, sit down or get Punched in the nose". The amount of vitriol your party leadership spewed upon Conservatives in the Republican Party showcased that the 11th Commandment was rescinded by the Establishment and only applies to the grassroots towards the rulers of the party. Trump himself has shown us that this "commandment" no longer applies.
So pound sand pal. I plan on speaking ill of your party and it's leaders. Your party is just another arm of the Statist Democrats.
And my mission is to help as many people take off their blinders to see it as such and get them into something new.
<<< I'm working to get as many Conservatives to dump your failed party and get them into something new. >>>
Far be it for me to discourage you, but if the Tea Party movement, as strong as that is, didn't splinter off from the Republican Party by now, then I sincerely doubt that anything you're thinking of would be successful.
But i like your determination, and good luck.
-
I'll give ya that one - Trump did do that. But after Trump received the nomination, he was as cordial as could be towards all the beaten Republican candidates. Sadly, Trump did not get a friendly congrats from some of them, and so Trump responded in kind.
You must admit...Ted Cruz was a bit out of line with his speech at the convention, and he got roundly booed for it. What was Trump supposed to do, hug him right after that?
I will admit no such thing! The party lost a man who had faithfully worked in the trenches for it for over 40 years at that convention and HE ain't comin back!
-
I think she means Trump can’t be considered conservative because, well, you know, it’s Trump. ....
Yes, I know. And it's still wrong. I am weary of watching history being rewritten because snowflakes have not finished melting.
-
You must admit...Ted Cruz was a bit out of line with his speech at the convention, and he got roundly booed for it. What was Trump supposed to do, hug him right after that?
Oh, you mean the World Wide Wrestling theatrics Trump performed by marching onto the Convention floor during Cruz' speech?
He was and is nothing but a NY Liberal Democrat Circus Act to me, and that stunt solidified that fact for me.
Just another variation on this:
(http://nation.com.pk/digital_images/large/2017-08-23/the-crazy-side-of-donald-trump-1503483567-1413.jpg)
-
<<< I'm working to get as many Conservatives to dump your failed party and get them into something new. >>>
Far be it for me to discourage you, but if the Tea Party movement, as strong as that is, didn't splinter off from the Republican Party by now, then I sincerely doubt that anything you're thinking of would be successful.
But i like your determination, and good luck.
Obviously you have no comprehension about how institutionalized corruption actually works.
But in fairness, unless you were a GOP Precinct Captain from Cook County, IL - you might not have any idea about how corruption and cronyism operates.
You will not be able to 'change' the GOP from its decent into Socialist Statism. Instead, you will be changed by it - as so many of us are witness to longtime party-before-everything types surrender what they paid lip service to all these years.
-
He was and is nothing but a NY Liberal Democrat Circus Act to me, and that stunt solidified that fact for me.
Get over yourself. 9999hair out0000
Only then will you be able to appreciate the conservative successes our President is piling up.
-
Honestly, have today's conservatives no memory? When did "populist" become such a dirty word?
Ronald Reagan was the quintessential populist---this is what gave birth to all those "Reagan democrats".
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160212160350-08-campaign-slogans-super-169.jpg)
@DCPatriot
Exactly right, and I don't think they were widely called "Trump Democrats" but Trump brought the same group into the Republican Party fold, good enough to win Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin which won us the election.
In 2020, Trump will no doubt keep and expand on that group, as well as expand on black votes which is why I think right now he is basically a lock to win in 2020. And the Democratic Party knows there is little they can do about it with their total lack of talent.
-
You couldn't have gotten better than we got. There was no "better" that would have won. You could only have gotten a lot worse than what we got.
Pretty much the same so far.
-
We know what you did. So why not just have Jane Fonda clapping as well if only some clapping GIF matters, not the real person.
So, what's the sound of a Jane Fonda one-hand Clap?
-
Obviously you have no comprehension about how institutionalized corruption actually works.
But in fairness, unless you were a GOP Precinct Captain from Cook County, IL - you might not have any idea about how corruption and cronyism operates.
You will not be able to 'change' the GOP from its decent into Socialist Statism. Instead, you will be changed by it - as so many of us are witness to longtime party-before-everything types surrender what they paid lip service to all these years.
I don't figure most if not almost all Tea Party folks, I am one of them, as being naive enough to agree with your basic points.
Again, good luck. However I have no idea where you are going to get your base from to start a new party that would gather more than 1 or 2 percent of the national vote at best, and certainly no electoral votes. Ross Perot, as strong as he was, received over 19 million votes but didn't get a single electoral vote. And the electoral college is all that matters for electing a POTUS.
-
Get over yourself. 9999hair out0000
Only then will you be able to appreciate the conservative successes our President is piling up.
Like that comment is going to change my mind about him?
In truth - it is people like you whom have actually done more to drive me into militant opposition to your prince and his party than just his own buffoonery and stupidity alone.
So pat yourself on the back because I will credit you and your ilk with driving more people from your party than Trump himself.
In addition, I'll likely wait until long after his term in office to evaluate whether or not anything he has done can be considered 'Conservative successes'.
Because Trump is not, nor never was a Conservative - despite what you so desperately want to loft upon him as your savior.
You people made me an 'enemy' by your own declarations since last year.
I intend to live up to the charge.
-
I'll give ya that one - Trump did do that. But after Trump received the nomination, he was as cordial as could be towards all the beaten Republican candidates. Sadly, Trump did not get a friendly congrats from some of them, and so Trump responded in kind.
You must admit...Ted Cruz was a bit out of line with his speech at the convention, and he got roundly booed for it. What was Trump supposed to do, hug him right after that?
Ted Cruz was not one BIT out of line at the Convention.
And he had a lot of us (now former) Republican Conservatives cheering madly at home.
In fact, it was the boos of the leftist Trump brigade at the Convention that sealed for me that I could no longer participate in such a principle-less party.
And I've never looked back. A party that can nominate Trump is not a party I can associate with.
-
Honestly, have today's conservatives no memory? When did "populist" become such a dirty word?
Ronald Reagan was the quintessential populist---this is what gave birth to all those "Reagan democrats".
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160212160350-08-campaign-slogans-super-169.jpg)
@DCPatriot
You seem to be the one with no memory on this issue.
Reagan was not a populist. He was a Conservative in every sense of the word.
You don't get to rewrite history so you can try to compare him favorably to Lord Orange.
Here let me spell it out for you since you don't seem to have the sense to know the difference between populism and conservatism.
Populism
Populism is a mode of political communication that is based on contrasts between the "common man" or "the people" and a real or imagined group of "privileged elites", traditionally scapegoating or making a folk devil of the latter. Populists can fall anywhere on the traditional left–right political spectrum of politics, and often portray both bourgeois capitalists and socialist organizers as unfairly dominating the political sphere.
Conservatism:
Major priorities within American conservatism include support for tradition, law-and-order, Christianity, anti-communism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments." Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Some social conservatives see traditional social values threatened by secularism, so they support school prayer and oppose abortion and homosexuality.
Here's what Reagan was and why he eventually got elected in the two biggest landslide victories in the history of the U.S.
It's called "A Time For Choosing" Might wanna watch it before you go accusing Reagan of being a populist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY
He most certainly wasn't populist and when he ran for President he didn't steal someone elses campaign slogan and try to say it was his original idea.
-
Because I don't happen to have one of those handy!
You carry on trying to change the Republican party from within! Hopefully you will have more success with that than I did!
I know you worked far harder than I did, @Bigun , but after years of trying to steer the party right, I determined that the task was hopeless.
The fact that people here claiming to be doing the same are also cheerleaders for Trump makes me realize that the Party no longer wants any form of Conservatism in it..
And because of that, it will implode.
-
I'll give ya that one - Trump did do that. But after Trump received the nomination, he was as cordial as could be towards all the beaten Republican candidates. Sadly, Trump did not get a friendly congrats from some of them, and so Trump responded in kind.
You must admit...Ted Cruz was a bit out of line with his speech at the convention, and he got roundly booed for it. What was Trump supposed to do, hug him right after that?
Wait one cotton picking minute. Trump never got down and dirty until he started getting punched. And when it did start raining down on him in earnest, it came from every direction. He had to fight back. Luckily, that’s in his wheel house. If he hadn’t fought back so adeptly, and against overwhelming opposition, odds were we would be talking about an asterisk today instead of President Trump.
-
I think she means Trump can’t be considered conservative because, well, you know, it’s Trump. I hope I didn’t misstate that but that’s how it appears to this humble servant of Lord Trump. :silly:
@RoosGirl
That's exactly what she meant. An acid-reflux reaction to President Trump.
...not that there's anything wrong with that. *****rollingeyes*****
-
And somewhere along the line, you have become a Crusader for a populist personality, and not conservatism.
In the manner that if Conservatism is using a tree to bash our enemies, I have become a crusader for trees.
I am for enemy bashing, and not particular about the sort of weapon we use to do it so long as it achieves the result of getting the enemy bashed.
-
Exactly right, and I don't think they were widely called "Trump Democrats" but Trump brought the same group into the Republican Party fold, good enough to win Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin which won us the election.
In 2020, Trump will no doubt keep and expand on that group, as well as expand on black votes which is why I think right now he is basically a lock to win in 2020. And the Democratic Party knows there is little they can do about it with their total lack of talent.
It perfectly explains the blatant 24/7 "HATE POTUS TRUMP" on all the alphabets and cable channels. And as of late, the phony outrage over the fallen soldier's family and the taken out of context meaning to his words and intentions.
It's "Hands up, Don't Shoot" redux.
They're all Alinskyites.
-
Really ... so populism can't be conservative? Fascinating.
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160212160350-08-campaign-slogans-super-169.jpg) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg/220px-Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg)
No, but Conservatism can be popular.
-
I'll give ya that one - Trump did do that. But after Trump received the nomination, he was as cordial as could be towards all the beaten Republican candidates. Sadly, Trump did not get a friendly congrats from some of them, and so Trump responded in kind.
You repeatedly call a man a liar, mock a man's wife and accuse his father of having something to do with the Kennedy assassination, and you expect cordial relations afterward?
In times past, there would be bloodshed over what was said.
You must admit...Ted Cruz was a bit out of line with his speech at the convention, and he got roundly booed for it. What was Trump supposed to do, hug him right after that?
Ted Cruz was not out of line. The people who were out of line were the ones expecting Cruz to do anything more than support the party that had treated him so shabbily.
Trump refrained from using the nasty tactics on Cruz until it was clear that he wasn't going to beat Cruz unless he did. For the longest time Trump and Cruz were very cordial to each other, but that all changed when Trump launched the "Lying Ted" meme, which his followers immediately repeated ad nauseum like trained clapping seals.
I actually expected Trump to do this, but I was still disappointed when he did. I had hoped that the two candidates could carry on their campaigns without having to get nasty at each other, but that was a forlorn hope.
To Cruz's credit, he has put the interests of the country ahead of his all too understandable grudge against Trump.
-
No, but Conservatism can be popular.
Don't know an easy way to tell you this, but..... Trump Supporters are Mainstream Tea Party Conservatives.
You, OTOH are like the Hare Krishna dancers in the airport banging on their tambourines. :laugh:
(btw...they too are orange)
-
@RoosGirl
That's exactly what she meant. An acid-reflux reaction to President Trump.
...not that there's anything wrong with that. *****rollingeyes*****
Why are you pinging me to your bullshit?
-
Pretty much the same so far.
Trump is as bad as Hillary? That comment is not even on the same planet as reality.
-
Why are you pinging me to your bullshit?
Out of 'respect' and forum etiquette? *****rollingeyes*****
-
Don't know an easy way to tell you this, but..... Trump Supporters are Mainstream Tea Party Conservatives.
Umm no they aren't.
The claim that Trump is a committed conservative is not very believable. Until recently, he was for higher taxes on the wealthy, taking in Syrian refugees, and single-payer health care. He almost never talks about the Constitution, faith, or liberty unless forced to. In 2012, Trump condemned Mitt Romney for being too harsh on illegal immigration. In May of this year, he attacked “publicity seekers” who needlessly provoked Muslims. With the exception of a few single-issue voters on immigration, Trump fans love him for his enemies and for his populist bombast, not for any specific principles. In other words, he divides the GOP more up-down than he does left-right.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428353/trump-doesnt-represent-conservative-base-jonah-goldberg
The true TEA Party Conservatives are the ones Trump and others here have said they didn't need. The same ones Mitch McConnell can't stand.
They are the ones that Trump threw under the bus in one of his many twitter rants...the Conservative Caucus in Congress...and people here piled on like it was some kind of dog whistle.
-
It perfectly explains the blatant 24/7 "HATE POTUS TRUMP" on all the alphabets and cable channels. And as of late, the phony outrage over the fallen soldier's family and the taken out of context meaning to his words and intentions.
It's "Hands up, Don't Shoot" redux.
They're all Alinskyites.
I keep trying to have conversations about how we badly need to smash the Democrat propaganda system, but too many people can't seem to grasp the threat that it poses.
Media delenda est.
-
@RoosGirl
That's exactly what she meant. An acid-reflux reaction to President Trump.
...not that there's anything wrong with that. *****rollingeyes*****
Kidding aside, I’d wager if one of the candidates favored by “some members” had made it all the way to the WH and had taken the same actions, executive orders and directives that Trump has, and been given all of the blame for “legislative failures” as Trump has they would not be disparaging their guy as they have been Trump. But, as always, their privilege to do so.
-
Umm no they aren't.
The true TEA Party Conservatives are the ones Trump and others here have said they didn't need. The same ones Mitch McConnell can't stand.
They are the ones that Trump threw under the bus in one of his many twitter rants...the Conservative Caucus in Congress...and people here piled on like it was some kind of dog whistle.
I was a member of the so-called Tea Party. I personally know dozens of others. Guess what?
Virtually unanimous in avid support for Donald Trump...the Nominee. And sure as hell at 100% today.
My bonafides:
Picked Donald Trump out from Day 1.
Told you all how he was going to win.
Have @RoosGirl look THAT up.
You, OTOH.... are probably a great guy to have a drink and shoot pool with.
Your political acumen needs attention. :laugh:
-
Out of 'respect' and forum etiquette? *****rollingeyes*****
I still have not a clue why or what I am being pinged to? I haven't said posted anything no this thread today. Am I supposed to have something to say about acid reflux? I hear there's a pill for that.
-
I don't figure most if not almost all Tea Party folks, I am one of them, as being naive enough to agree with your basic points.
Ask me if I care. Most of the Tea Party people I run with are all of the same mindset. I got a good chunk of them to vote third party last November, we're working on the rest.
Again, good luck. However I have no idea where you are going to get your base from to start a new party that would gather more than 1 or 2 percent of the national vote at best, and certainly no electoral votes.
Gotta start somewhere. Rome was not built in a day either.
At minimum I will again have a clean conscience by voting FOR candidates in a party who share my core values rather than simply practicing insanity and voting to block the 'greater evil' as we have been doing for decades while the country is dragged off the Leftist cliffs - with your own failed party doing a much of the heavy lifting to make that happen.
-
Don't know an easy way to tell you this, but..... Trump Supporters are Mainstream Tea Party Conservatives.
No, they are not... Only something like 30% self-identify as conservatives - Which would be the weaker sort.
As to the TEA party, considering my own involvement on the money side of things for years, and considering that connection spans both libertarian and social conservative circles in the Pacific NW, the Inland NW, and the Northern Rockies, and considering that, to a man, my entire contact list shut off the spigots Upon the day of Tump's ascension, and are now re-gearing that support elsewhere Away from RTL, away from national and regional Republican organizations... I will tell you quite firmly that you are stone dead wrong.
My cousin is another avid TEA Partier, standing on the floor in Colorado, after a massive and hard fought victory, only to be called a traitor and liberal plant by your scurrilous associates and party. He and his will be working against you now too.
You, OTOH are like the Hare Krishna dancers in the airport banging on their tambourines. :laugh:
(btw...they too are orange)
So be it. I really couldn't care less for your opinions. What you can certainly bank upon is that your cause will gain not a whit form me, nor anyone I know or can influence, because I know the difference between what you proffer and true Conservatism. And being of Reagan, and of the TEA party, I am in no way alone.
-
Trump is as bad as Hillary? That comment is not even on the same planet as reality.
With the exception of one unproven judge, nothing has changed.
-
Umm no they aren't.
The true TEA Party Conservatives are the ones Trump and others here have said they didn't need. The same ones Mitch McConnell can't stand.
They are the ones that Trump threw under the bus in one of his many twitter rants...the Conservative Caucus in Congress...and people here piled on like it was some kind of dog whistle.
That's right.
-
With the exception of one unproven judge, nothing has changed.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285363.0.html
-
With the exception of one unproven judge, nothing has changed.
Do you think the GDP would have reached 3%? After we were told for 8 years, we should get down on our knees in thanks for 1.5%?
And passing 23,000 on the stock market?
Do you think we'd have a 2nd Amendment today? Do you have any inkling what a Hillary Clinton SCOTUS would be capable of doing to the Constitution? Immigration? The corruption?
And you have the gall to suggest Donald Trump is no different?
Talk about Rocky Mountain High..... *****rollingeyes*****
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285363.0.html
*SNORT*
Bread and circuses.
-
Do you think the GDP would have reached 3%? After we were told for 8 years, we should get down on our knees in thanks for 1.5%?
And passing 23,000 on the stock market?
wheeeee!
Do you think we'd have a 2nd Amendment today? Do you have any inkling what a Hillary Clinton SCOTUS would be capable of doing to the Constitution? Immigration? The corruption?
Yeah, like Roberts saved the day? Don't even start with me about SCOTUS. Until I hear Scalia coming out of that man's mouth, he's just another a$$hole in a black robe, no different from the rest.
And you have the gall to suggest Donald Trump is no different?
Talk about Rocky Mountain High..... *****rollingeyes*****
*NOTHING* has changed. 10 months out and all he's managed to do is piss off everyone he needs to get anything done.
And you can leave off the fist-pumping about EOs and friggin NFL bullshit.
Woohooism. (See FR fundraising)
-
I was a member of the so-called Tea Party. I personally know dozens of others. Guess what?
Virtually unanimous in avid support for Donald Trump...the Nominee. And sure as hell at 100% today.
My bonafides:
Picked Donald Trump out from Day 1.
Told you all how he was going to win.
Have @RoosGirl look THAT up.
You, OTOH.... are probably a great guy to have a drink and shoot pool with.
Your political acumen needs attention. :laugh:
Oh, I think I get it. You're upset that I know how to look at someone's history of posts to figure out if they're consistent in their comments of just blowing hot air and being a PITA?
-
Do you think the GDP would have reached 3%?
I do not believe jack shit that comes out of the mouth of any government or alphabet agency. If the NOAA says the sky is blue, I need to go outside and verify that for myself given the amount of political bullshit government peddles and tries to shove down our throats as 'truth'.
And passing 23,000 on the stock market?
Stock Market is nothing but a manipulated casino scheme totally detached from reality. Both Obama and Clinton crowed about the 'rising markets' during their tenures and you and I both know their regimes did nothing but punish and hurt small business while empowering corporations who are willing to pay to play.
Do you think we'd have a 2nd Amendment today?
When did you think that right was simply a privilege granted by men in robes or a monarch ruling from the White House that can be rescinded on a whim?
Not many of us will surrender it just because the Beast at Mordor on the Potomac says it is null and void. Sad that you will.
Do you have any inkling what a Hillary Clinton SCOTUS would be capable of doing to the Constitution? Immigration? The corruption?
Business as usual for them, for the GOP and the Oligarchy.
And you have the gall to suggest Donald Trump is no different?
I say he's only different in the fact that his nethers are likely not dried up and as dusty as Hildabeast's.
Outside of that, politically - I think they are not that different in how they see government.
-
In the manner that if Conservatism is using a tree to bash our enemies, I have become a crusader for trees.
I am for enemy bashing, and not particular about the sort of weapon we use to do it so long as it achieves the result of getting the enemy bashed.
Thanks for admitting that you don't want conservatism. You want revenge.
It's funny to remember all the shrieking from the Trump troops when it was pointed out that they were voting for Trump in unprincipled anger and emotion, and that was no way to choose a nominee.
I appreciate your candor in saying your support for Trump is that he has a big mouth and is bashing others.
But thanks for contributing to the death of conservatism. I'll remember you when I throw dirt on its grave..... **nononono*
-
... But thanks for contributing to the death of conservatism. I'll remember you when I throw dirt on its grave.....
:odrama: *****rollingeyes*****
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285363.0.html
Facts don’t matter. This is politics. Just look at that So. Florida congresswoman in the news today, the one with the crazy hats, she hates Trump so much her words of hate come out as an autonomic response. She doesn’t even know she’s lying. To her, the voices inside her head are speaking truth out of her mouth. It’s called Trump derangement syndrome.
Anyone you recognize?
-
Thanks for admitting that you don't want conservatism. You want revenge.
Revenge? When one sees a horde of barbarians posed on the edge of civilization, one does not need "revenge" to realize they need to be bashed.
Revenge is fine, but prevention is better. I want them bashed because they need to be bashed, not because they have done me wrong. I want them bashed mainly for what they *will* do, not what they have done, though to be fair, they deserve being bashed for that as well.
It's funny to remember all the shrieking from the Trump troops when it was pointed out that they were voting for Trump in unprincipled anger and emotion, and that was no way to choose a nominee.
Seems to have worked out pretty well.
I appreciate your candor in saying your support for Trump is that he has a big mouth and is bashing others.
But thanks for contributing to the death of conservatism. I'll remember you when I throw dirt on its grave..... **nononono*
Well it's been walking around like a zombie for about 3 decades now, so I guess it is about time to dig it a grave and let you throw dirt on it.
Oh, and I had nothing to do with killing it. It moved with the speed and energy of a sloth, and so it's enemies beat it to death.
Those are the enemies I want bashed, so perhaps you can enjoy a little revenge when we've set about doing it. :)
-
Thanks for admitting that you don't want conservatism. You want revenge.
It's funny to remember all the shrieking from the Trump troops when it was pointed out that they were voting for Trump in unprincipled anger and emotion, and that was no way to choose a nominee.
I appreciate your candor in saying your support for Trump is that he has a big mouth and is bashing others.
But thanks for contributing to the death of conservatism. I'll remember you when I throw dirt on its grave..... **nononono*
Thanks for this post. It's what disturbs me about some (not all, but some) of the Pro-Trump folks...they are out for revenge, and I don't like that as a motivator. Someone who would gleefully take revenge on a leftist will equally take revenge on people who are on the same side. It's caustic.
-
Facts don’t matter. This is politics.
I keep telling people that, but they don't seem to understand the nature of this game.
Just look at that So. Florida congresswoman in the news today, the one with the crazy hats, she hates Trump so much her words of hate come out as an autonomic response. She doesn’t even know she’s lying. To her, the voices inside her head are speaking truth out of her mouth. It’s called Trump derangement syndrome.
Recognize anyone you know?
I see a lot of that in a lot of people who don't seem to realize that it's irrational.
-
Thanks for this post. It's what disturbs me about some (not all, but some) of the Pro-Trump folks...they are out for revenge, and I don't like that as a motivator. Someone who would gleefully take revenge on a leftist will equally take revenge on people who are on the same side. It's caustic.
Unless you're a GD Commie, you have nothing to worry about. :laugh:
-
Thanks for this post. It's what disturbs me about some (not all, but some) of the Pro-Trump folks...they are out for revenge, and I don't like that as a motivator. Someone who would gleefully take revenge on a leftist will equally take revenge on people who are on the same side. It's caustic.
I can't speak for others, but "revenge" is not a prime motivating factor for me. I am content to let them alone if I could believe that they will leave me alone.
Alas, I am utterly convinced that "leaving me alone" is not in their nature, and so I will have to advocate dealing with them before they can deal with us.
Does anyone here believe that we can go about our lives without the left continuing to attack us?
-
So, what's the sound of a Jane Fonda one-hand Clap?
I wouldn't want the clap from her, I don't care how many hands she used.
-
I keep trying to have conversations about how we badly need to smash the Democrat propaganda system, but too many people can't seem to grasp the threat that it poses.
Media delenda est.
@DiogenesLamp
Having a serious conversation on this forum is next to impossible but I'm sure you've noticed that already.
-
@DiogenesLamp
Having a serious conversation on this forum is next to impossible but I'm sure you've noticed that already.
I was going to give you a thumbs up for this .... but it doesn't seem to fit the sentiment.
-
Thanks for this post. It's what disturbs me about some (not all, but some) of the Pro-Trump folks...they are out for revenge, and I don't like that as a motivator. Someone who would gleefully take revenge on a leftist will equally take revenge on people who are on the same side. It's caustic.
What I want is my country back and will do whatever I can to get it back!
-
I was going to give you a thumbs up for this .... but it doesn't seem to fit the sentiment.
There’s never a third-digit salute emoji around here when you need one.
-
I can't speak for others, but "revenge" is not a prime motivating factor for me. I am content to let them alone if I could believe that they will leave me alone.
Alas, I am utterly convinced that "leaving me alone" is not in their nature, and so I will have to advocate dealing with them before they can deal with us.
Does anyone here believe that we can go about our lives without the left continuing to attack us?
This one sure as hell doesn't!
-
What I want is my country back and will do whatever I can to get it back!
Yep. Like Goldwater said of extremism in the defense of liberty. It ain’t no vice.
-
There’s never a third-digit salute emoji around here when you need one.
I was going to give @Bigun a thumbs-up in agreement---but the thumbs-up seemed too celebratory for his comment about the forum.
Although I do agree a third digit salute emoji would be helpful---if not overused. :laugh:
-
I wouldn't want the clap from her, I don't care how many hands she used.
I love ya, Joe. You always get my jokes.... :laugh:
-
Unless you're a GD Commie, you have nothing to worry about. :laugh:
You've always been in the "not some" part of my comment.... :beer:
-
Wait one cotton picking minute. Trump never got down and dirty until he started getting punched.
*****rollingeyes*****
And when it did start raining down on him in earnest, it came from every direction. He had to fight back. Luckily, that’s in his wheel house. If he hadn’t fought back so adeptly, and against overwhelming opposition, odds were we would be talking about an asterisk today instead of President Trump.
That post is such egregious revisionism it defies response. **nononono* What a pile.
-
I can't speak for others, but "revenge" is not a prime motivating factor for me. I am content to let them alone if I could believe that they will leave me alone.
Alas, I am utterly convinced that "leaving me alone" is not in their nature, and so I will have to advocate dealing with them before they can deal with us.
Does anyone here believe that we can go about our lives without the left continuing to attack us?
You don't seem like you're out for revenge, either. There are a few people I talk to here who are positively delighted at the prospect of "getting even," and I think that's not such a good motivator.
-
I keep trying to have conversations about how we badly need to smash the Democrat propaganda system, but too many people can't seem to grasp the threat that it poses.
Media delenda est.
Fine with me. Get rid of both propaganda systems and let the actions of those in office speak for themselves. Oh wait. Listen...
>crickets<
-
*****rollingeyes*****
That post is such egregious revisionism it defies response. **nononono* What a pile.
Thanks! Saved me the trouble! :beer:
-
I wouldn't want the clap from her, I don't care how many hands she used.
:silly:
-
Revenge? When one sees a horde of barbarians posed on the edge of civilization, one does not need "revenge" to realize they need to be bashed.
Revenge is fine, but prevention is better. I want them bashed because they need to be bashed, not because they have done me wrong. I want them bashed mainly for what they *will* do, not what they have done, though to be fair, they deserve being bashed for that as well.
Seems to have worked out pretty well.
Well it's been walking around like a zombie for about 3 decades now, so I guess it is about time to dig it a grave and let you throw dirt on it.
Oh, and I had nothing to do with killing it. It moved with the speed and energy of a sloth, and so it's enemies beat it to death.
Those are the enemies I want bashed, so perhaps you can enjoy a little revenge when we've set about doing it. :)
What "worked well" was completing the task of destroying the Republican party and dinging up conservatism so that it might not survive.
As for the "we" who have "set about doing it"............ PLEASE tell me you don't actually believe what Trump is doing (and your cheerleading for him on this forum) is actually accomplishing anything for Conservatism! *****rollingeyes*****
Trump, by responding like a child and bashing the media and the left in the manner of a 12 year old child is "accomplishing" NOTHING for Conservatism.
It is anger that elected him, and it is anger sustaining him as he makes a fool of you all.
Other than venting and screeching, nothing has been accomplished since he was elected.
But you're clearly proud of yourself, so I guess for you, that's all that counts.....
-
What I want is my country back and will do whatever I can to get it back!
:thumbsup2: :thumbsup2: :thumbsup2:
-
What "worked well" was completing the task of destroying the Republican party and dinging up conservatism so that it might not survive.
As for the "we" who have "set about doing it"............ PLEASE tell me you don't actually believe what Trump is doing (and your cheerleading for him on this forum) is actually accomplishing anything for Conservatism! *****rollingeyes*****
Trump, by responding like a child and bashing the media and the left in the manner of a 12 year old child is "accomplishing" NOTHING for Conservatism.
It is anger that elected him, and it is anger sustaining him as he makes a fool of you all.
Other than venting and screeching, nothing has been accomplished since he was elected.
But you're clearly proud of yourself, so I guess for you, that's all that counts.....
I respectfully submit that you are quite wrong in saying "Trump is accomplishing NOTHING for conservatism" . His court appointments alone give the lie to that IMHO.
-
Other than venting and screeching, nothing has been accomplished since he was elected.
Hmmm... it appears you missed the thesis of this very thread. Let me repost it for you @musiclady --- and remind you also that this is a partial list:
1. Put Justice Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
2. Ended DACA and the used it as a bargaining chip for better Border enforcement and a wall.
3. Exited the Paris Agreement.
4. Brought down NAFTA and reset for a new negotiation across the board.it.
5. Ended Obamacare insurance subsidies of over 7 billion dollars.
6. Deeply cut government regulation.
7. Nominated large numbers of Conservative justices to the Federal courts.
8. Decertified the Iran deal.
9. Stood up to NFL players disrespecting the anthem, flag and our national identity.
10. Proposed deep cuts in Corporate tax rates across the board.
11. Proposed deep cuts in taxes for the middle class.
12. Waged war against grotesque liberal media bias.
13. Imposed immigration limits on terror risk nations and fought for them in the courts.
14. Set the Justice Department and the admin to oppose "Sanctuary" cities.
15. Allowed private companies/insurers to NOT provide abortion coverage against their own moral views.
16. Opposed hysterical calls for strong new gun control legislation following the Vegas shooting.
17. Advocated for increased defense spending and revitalization in particular of our decaying naval forces.
18. Supported police and law enforcement at every turn against groups like ANTIFA and BLM.
19. Called consistently for protection of the unborn, and supporting a strict post 20 week ban on abortions.
20. Fought for new legislation, even if congress failed in its part, to repeal Obamacare.
-
I respectfully submit that you are quite wrong in saying "Trump is accomplishing NOTHING for conservatism" . His court appointments alone give the lie to that IMHO.
I hesitated with the word "nothing," but as of yet, have there been any decisions going our way because of him, and if not is that actually an "accomplishment."
As others have said.... we'll have to wait and see about the accomplishment part of it.
btw, I disagree with your statement that there are no serious conversations here.
There are many.
-
I hesitated with the word "nothing," but as of yet, have there been any decisions going our way because of him, and if not is that actually an "accomplishment."
As others have said.... we'll have to wait and see about the accomplishment part of it.
btw, I disagree with your statement that there are no serious conversations here.
There are many.
Yeah! Until they get cut off midstream by an overzealous mod or someone who doesn't like the subject of the discussion starts posting meaningless garbage that takes it completely off track.
-
Trump has already implemented a lot of things per social conservative issues, cutting regulations and red tape, respect for freedom of religion. Besides his court nominees, I am fully grateful.
Trump has helped conservatism, many people did not expect him to win.
2008 was a blow out of Republicans.
Trump has done well. If people don't like him, fine, but my vote certainly was not wasted.
-
Really ... so populism can't be conservative? Fascinating.
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160212160350-08-campaign-slogans-super-169.jpg) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg/220px-Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg)
Nope, populism is antithetical to a constitutional republic.
-
What I want is my country back and will do whatever I can to get it back!
Amen, Brother! :beer: :patriot:
-
You've always been in the "not some" part of my comment.... :beer:
:patriot: ^-^
-
Nope, populism is antithetical to a constitutional republic.
Even when "populism" is screaming for a return to the US Constitution and American values---as it was in 1980 and even more so in 2016?
Just what do you have against "making America great again"?
-
Yeah! Until they get cut off midstream by an overzealous mod or someone who doesn't like the subject of the discussion starts posting meaningless garbage that takes it completely off track.
Well, not going to argue with you about that!
Lots of senseless quibbling here ****slapping, but I still say lots of good discussion with respectful comments from both sides. :beer:
-
Methadone is great at creating train wreck threads. First it was the "Dem Plant" thread and now this. Kudos.
-
Nope, populism is antithetical to a constitutional republic.
The point...which you should have seen...is that both Ronald Reagan followed Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump followed Barack Hussein Obama & Co..
Two Democratic presidents that did great damage to our economy, military, and made the Middle East a more dangerous place.
It's a perfectly normal human condition for a People to gravitate for something to cheer about. Ergo: Ronald Reagan/Donald Trump.
I could be snarky and say, "I guess you had to be there!"...for Ronald Reagan.
But sadly, you were. :shrug:
-
Methadone is great at creating train wreck threads. First it was the "Dem Plant" thread and now this. Kudos.
LOL! That "Dem plant" thread was AWESOME!
(Especially because it was started by the only one on the forum. And he's still here!!)
-
Do you think the GDP would have reached 3%? After we were told for 8 years, we should get down on our knees in thanks for 1.5%?
And passing 23,000 on the stock market?
Do you think we'd have a 2nd Amendment today? Do you have any inkling what a Hillary Clinton SCOTUS would be capable of doing to the Constitution? Immigration? The corruption?
And you have the gall to suggest Donald Trump is no different?
Talk about Rocky Mountain High..... *****rollingeyes*****
This might be a good time to mention that Hillary might still go down. Yes, someone could uncover the bodies, and wouldn’t that be justice.
And if Trump had lost and had Hillary won the election think of the constitutional crisis we averted when her trail of lies and corruption eventually became known. It’s GOOD Trump is president.
-
This might be a good time to mention that Hillary might still go down. Yes, someone could uncover the bodies, and wouldn’t that be justice.
And if Trump had lost and had Hillary won the election think of the constitutional crisis we averted when her trail of lies and corruption eventually became known. It’s GOOD Trump is president.
LOL. This is a bleep awesome post.
-
LOL. This is a bleep awesome post.
Yes it is, thanks. I guess I was doing a little daydreaming there. Fellow can dream, can’t he.
-
Even when "populism" is screaming for a return to the US Constitution and American values---as it was in 1980 and even more so in 2016?
Populism is by definition unprincipled, it is based on whatever the masses want. The
Constitution is designed to temper public anger and filter mass movements. It limits
government power in favor of the people. Trumpian populism seeks to use government
power to “help” the people.
I understand the inclination to make peace with Trumpian populism. But if you go this
route you have rejected your conservative principles in favor of public opinion. Constitution-
alism means we don’t just follow the popular trends. During the Obama years, Conservatives
did not make the argument that we should abandon conservatism because progressivism
had won.
Public opinion is not supreme. If it were, Donald Trump would not be taking office. Hillary
Clinton, who won the popular vote, would be.
---Jay W. Cobb (https://thebuckleyclub.com/populism-isnt-compatible-with-conservatism-c14662d6523d),
2 December 2016.
Public opinion once upon a time supported slavery in many places. Was public opinion wise? Public opinion
once upon a time supported institutionalised racism in many places. Was public opinion wise? Public opinion
has often enough supported a good many things right reason knows to be wrong at minimum and grotesque-
ly dangerous at maximum. Is public opinion always wise? Would it have been wise to hand Hilarious Rodent
Clinton the White House because she won the popular vote but not the Electoral College vote? (Those who
think it wise to abolish the Electoral College, whatever they think of Donaldus Minimus, might want to
ponder that one, in the event a rightward candidate in the future wins the popular but not the electoral
vote.)
Just what do you have against "making America great again"?
America, which has never been not great, would cease to be America if she remains defined strictly
by fealty to whomever happens to hold the presidency, or to the cult of the presidency, a cult which is
much in need of dissipation regardless of who happens to hold the office. I'd like to think there was
a sound reason why the presidency comes in second in the array of the Constitution, even as I lament
that too many of my countrymanpersons continue to believe the president uber alles.
Make America "great" again? How about making America America again?
p.s. To those who insist on continuing with the Clinton bugaboo, please try to remember: Hilarious Rodent
Clinton lost. Get over it.
-
Nope, populism is antithetical to a constitutional republic.
pop·u·lism
[ˈpäpyəˌlizəm]
NOUN
support for the concerns of ordinary people:
"it is clear that your populism identifies with the folks on the bottom of the ladder" · "the Finance Minister performed a commendable balancing act, combining populism with prudence"
the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people:
"art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism"
(http://cjdellatore.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/question-mark.jpg)
Then, how is it defined?
-
...and then the tires went screech....
-
The point...which you should have seen...is that both Ronald Reagan followed Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump followed Barack Hussein Obama & Co..
Two Democratic presidents that did great damage to our economy, military, and made the Middle East a more dangerous place.
It's a perfectly normal human condition for a People to gravitate for something to cheer about. Ergo: Ronald Reagan/Donald Trump.
I could be snarky and say, "I guess you had to be there!"...for Ronald Reagan.
But sadly, you were. :shrug:
Looks like, sadly, you missed my point. :shrug:
-
(http://cjdellatore.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/question-mark.jpg)
Then, how is it defined?
See the post just above yours.
-
"support for the concerns of ordinary people:"
Christians feel they are being given a raw deal in everything, LGBT/Big Government agenda pushed, Christians mocked on TV, someone feels that is wrong; and all of a sudden, someone appeals to them and all of a sudden, this is populism that is antithetical? *****rollingeyes*****
-
See the post just above yours.
No, I think I'll take mine.
I don't need eggheads at the National Review making the definition, Jay W. Cobb? Might as well be Lee J. Cobb.
-
Populism is by definition unprincipled, it is based on whatever the masses want. The
Constitution is designed to temper public anger and filter mass movements. It limits
government power in favor of the people. Trumpian populism seeks to use government
power to “help” the people.
I understand the inclination to make peace with Trumpian populism. But if you go this
route you have rejected your conservative principles in favor of public opinion. Constitution-
alism means we don’t just follow the popular trends. During the Obama years, Conservatives
did not make the argument that we should abandon conservatism because progressivism
had won.
Public opinion is not supreme. If it were, Donald Trump would not be taking office. Hillary
Clinton, who won the popular vote, would be.
---Jay W. Cobb (https://thebuckleyclub.com/populism-isnt-compatible-with-conservatism-c14662d6523d),
2 December 2016.
Public opinion once upon a time supported slavery in many places. Was public opinion wise? Public opinion
once upon a time supported institutionalised racism in many places. Was public opinion wise? Public opinion
has often enough supported a good many things right reason knows to be wrong at minimum and grotesque-
ly dangerous at maximum. Is public opinion always wise? Would it have been wise to hand Hilarious Rodent
Clinton the White House because she won the popular vote but not the Electoral College vote? (Those who
think it wise to abolish the Electoral College, whatever they think of Donaldus Minimus, might want to
ponder that one, in the event a rightward candidate in the future wins the popular but not the electoral
vote.)
America, which has never been not great, would cease to be America if she remains defined strictly
by fealty to whomever happens to hold the presidency, or to the cult of the presidency, a cult which is
much in need of dissipation regardless of who happens to hold the office. I'd like to think there was
a sound reason why the presidency comes in second in the array of the Constitution, even as I lament
that too many of my countrymanpersons continue to believe the president uber alles.
Make America "great" again? How about making America America again?
p.s. To those who insist on continuing with the Clinton bugaboo, please try to remember: Hilarious Rodent
Clinton lost. Get over it.
GREAT post, @EasyAce !
Thanks!
-
Be comfortable if one wants to call the Tea Party a populist movement which I can see and now, say that is antithetical as well.
United States
See also: Radical right (United States)
Moore (1996) argues that "populist opposition to the growing power of political, economic, and cultural elites" helped shape "conservative and right-wing movements" since the 1920s.[101] Historical right-wing populist figures in the United States have included Thomas E. Watson, Strom Thurmond, Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, and Pat Buchanan.[102]
Yes, thanks @EasyAce Great post.
Now, we know the Tea Party is disdained by some here.
The Tea Party movement has been characterized as "a right-wing anti-systemic populist movement" by Rasmussen and Schoen (2010). They add, "Today our country is in the midst of a...new populist revolt that has emerged overwhelmingly from the right – manifesting itself as the Tea Party movement."[103] In 2010, David Barstow wrote in The New York Times that "The Tea Party movement has become a platform for conservative populist discontent".[104] Some political figures closely associated with the Tea Party, such as U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and former U.S. Representative Ron Paul, have been described as appealing to right-wing populism.[105][106][107]
Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, noted for its anti-globalist, anti-elitist, and anti-illegal immigration rhetoric, was characterized as that of a right-wing populist.[108][109]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism
Oooooooooops..
-
National Review is crap, but Wikipedia is a bastion of conservative thought and idea.
-
Yes, National Review has had all of these successful Presidential candidates they have endorsed lately.
-
GREAT post, @EasyAce !
Thanks!
@musiclady
You're welcome!
All I know otherwise is that if I built a music library based on popular opinion, I wouldn't have a lick
of my two favourite musics (blues and jazz) in it. (My music library is dominated equally by both.)
Not to mention not a lot of soul music and maybe not a lot of world/ethnic music. (I'm a freak for
Indian, Native American, and some African music, too.)
-
Okay, Encyclopedia Britannica:
Tea Party movement
Tea Party movement, conservative populist social and political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation and government intervention in the private sector while supporting stronger immigration controls.
Continued: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tea-Party-movement
Now where are your "cute" little shoot from the hip responses to that? I'll bet I can find dozens of entries calling the Tea Party populist but now, some want some sort of limited definition and that makes it bad. Really? **nononono*
-
Yes, National Review has had all of these successful Presidential candidates they have endorsed lately.
I know, I hate it when the conservative doesn't win.
-
Really ... so populism can't be conservative? Fascinating.
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160212160350-08-campaign-slogans-super-169.jpg) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg/220px-Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg)
Yep, great post.
@Right_in_Virginia
And now, let's see if detractors salvage the tea party too at this "Conservative Hub".
Tea Party is going to be thought of pretty much as Populist so some author nobody has heard of at the Buckley group has the definition we are suppose to buy. No thanks.
new gadsen8888
-
@musiclady
You're welcome!
All I know otherwise is that if I built a music library based on popular opinion, I wouldn't have a lick
of my two favourite musics (blues and jazz) in it. (My music library is dominated equally by both.)
Not to mention not a lot of soul music and maybe not a lot of world/ethnic music. (I'm a freak for
Indian, Native American, and some African music, too.)
Ain't that the truth! Maybe part of your perceptiveness on this subject (and hopefully mine?) is that we are musicians who specialize in music that is NOT popular.
In fact, I have eschewed popularity since I was old enough to know what it meant. So perhaps that's part of the reason I resist the urge to support candidate who's basing his/her campaign on public opinion, and not principle.
(Not particularly fond of Native American music other than the flutes. ^-^)
@EasyAce
-
Ain't that the truth! Maybe part of your perceptiveness on this subject (and hopefully mine?) is that we are musicians who specialize in music that is NOT popular.
In fact, I have eschewed popularity since I was old enough to know what it meant. So perhaps that's part of the reason I resist the urge to support candidate who's basing his/her campaign on public opinion, and not principle.
(Not particularly fond of Native American music other than the flutes. ^-^)
@EasyAce
@musiclady
Once upon a time, William Jennings Bryan, considered at times to be a populist hero of a sort, said
this: The people of Nebraska are for free silver and therefore I am for free silver. I shall determine
what it means later. Bryan, of course, ran for the presidency three times and lost, which may say
something for a periodic residual wisdom within "the people"---if not something against a man who
appears, as Bryan did with such a remark, lacking in the ability to think for and by himself.
-
I know, I hate it when the conservative doesn't win.
You've got that right, conservatism is proven by words.
-
You've got that right, conservatism is proven by words.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
-
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
I'm kind of a "deeds" guy, myself.
-
I'm kind of a "deeds" guy, myself.
@Cyber Liberty
You've been to Washington, then, Mr. Deeds . . . :p
-
@Cyber Liberty
You've been to Washington, then, Mr. Deeds . . . :p
:laugh:
Been to DeeCee a few times. Don't trust any of those bastids! :tongue2: :chairbang:
-
:laugh:
Been to DeeCee a few times. Don't trust any of those bastids! :tongue2: :chairbang:
:beer:
-
@Cyber Liberty
You've been to Washington, then, Mr. Deeds . . . :p
(http://static.wixstatic.com/media/f9c0b8_2f28e6dce6e744c68a66f35d548841fd~mv2_d_2400_1350_s_2.jpg)
-
Make America "great" again? How about making America America again?
That was a brilliant post.
-
Having thrown out our core foundations as a people and a culture, only ruin lies ahead of us. The further this culture gets away from God and the Bible as a society, the further into tyranny we will go.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
Liberty as intended for us, is a construct of biblical morality and more secular and hedonist we go - the greater despotism we will suffer. If you read the Founders - you would find a commonality in their warnings about keeping a republic: if this people will not be governed by God, they will be ruled by the tyranny of men. We are already comfortable with that, and more than half the population sees government as their god.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
We are not going to become 'stronger than before' having discarded our only sure foundation for liberty's existence. Not unless you want to throw empire and rulers by force as a measure of greatness.
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Where do you come up with this shit? Where did I say anything about political discourse being healthy? I'm simply telling you that your party is dead is to me and as corrupt and Statist as the Democrat Party. How is that declaring political discourse unhealthy?
Look pal, it was the TRUMP fanatics who threatened us with hanging or firing squad for treason simply because of our refusal to vote for Trump or our criticisms of him - so if you want to tackle the subject of unhealthy political discourse - you can start there.
Knock yourself out. I'm done practicing insanity and want nothing to do with your party or anyone running in it.
Your party is already corrupted, compromised and taken over by statists who rewrote the rules at the last two conventions to prevent any possible change in the Leftist-Compromise direction of your party. The Republican Party is already the party of Big Brother.
You simply refuse to see it.
Oh the moral narcissism of it all....the surety of your own moral code being superior to the rest of us. Its breathtaking, a fine example of what is the opposite of Jesus teaching about humility. But that aside, just plain full of self righteousnes, self promotion, and a little butthurt over your guy Ted not winning the nomination. This isn't about god or morality...its about you and your feelings.
The basis of our freedom is common law, as Jefferson....our pre-eminent Founding Father...makes crystal clear. As for god and the bible and society...well...the teachings of Jesus are marvelous. That of many of his followers...not so much. Christianity in practice during its 1700 years of prominence has oppressed ....under the guidance of men ranging from Theodosius to Torquemada to the Borgia popes...free thought and freedom in general. The church has been an almost unrelenting force opposing freedom of thought and deed. Men like Galileo, Da Vinci, Newton, Hypatia, Sir Francis Bacon, Giordano Bruno, Copernicus, Kepler were all suppressed and in some cases murdered by Christianity.
As one very godly, brave and brilliant man once said... "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
I let Thomas Jefferson argue my case above...seemed fitting to let our greatest Founding Father handle this topic.
Christianity in the right hands can be a powerful force for good...a call to love and kindness in the world. Sadly, this has rarely been the case and it most certainly has not been a force moving societies towards democracy and personal freedoms. Thus, while they were Christians, the FF's for the most part were scornful of "institutions" of religion, be they Christian or otherwise..and its why many of them considered themselves Deists.
-
Oh the moral narcissism of it all....the surety of your own moral code being superior to the rest of us. Its breathtaking, a fine example of what is the opposite of Jesus teaching about humility. But that aside, just plain full of self righteousnes, self promotion, and a little butthurt over your guy Ted not winning the nomination. This isn't about god or morality...its about you and your feelings.
The basis of our freedom is common law, as Jefferson....our pre-eminent Founding Father...makes crystal clear. As for god and the bible and society...well...the teachings of Jesus are marvelous. That of many of his followers...not so much. Christianity in practice during its 1700 years of prominence has oppressed ....under the guidance of men ranging from Theodosius to Torquemada to the Borgia popes...free thought and freedom in general. The church has been an almost unrelenting force opposing freedom of thought and deed. Men like Galileo, Da Vinci, Newton, Hypatia, Sir Francis Bacon, Giordano Bruno, Copernicus, Kepler were all suppressed and in some cases murdered by Christianity.
As one very godly, brave and brilliant man once said... "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Christianity in the right hands can be a powerful force for good...a call to love and kindness in the world. Sadly, this has rarely been the case and it most certainly has not been a force moving societies towards democracy and personal freedoms. Thus, while they were Christians, the FF's for the most part were scornful of "institutions" of religion, be they Christian or otherwise..and its why many of them considered themselves Deists.
And as usual, Christianity feeds millions of hungry, daily, and clothes them and without it, we'd all be bowing to Mecca but carry on.
-
And as usual, Christianity feeds millions of hungry, daily, and clothes them and without it, we'd all be bowing to Mecca but carry on.
Christianity in the right hands can be a powerful force for good...a call to love and kindness in the world.
Repeated the above line...in case you missed it.
The rest of what I stated is simply the history of the church and of Christianity generally...albeit, by necessity, a very partial history. There are many positive contributions...that stem from the teachings of Jesus. Far less, that stem from the Church and the "structure" that dominated Christianit in the past. In this modern era, the Church HAS become much more of a force for good and charity...whereas Islam has descended to savagery and moral blindness. No doubt of that and not a point of contention with me.
-
Oh the moral narcissism of it all....the surety of your own moral code being superior to the rest of us.
I just love it when a seared conscience has to lash out with insults and condescension as some kind of rebuttal. Thanks for the confirmation.
Its breathtaking, a fine example of what is the opposite of Jesus teaching about humility.
Chapter and verse from Yeshua about humility please? You know nothing of the biblical Christ outside of that which you have constructed in your own imagination per past discussions. And no, I have no intention of debating a willful instrument of the god of this age and his wisdom which you like to dispense with great condescension in order to loft yourself up upon your own intellect and self importance.
But that aside, just plain full of self righteousnes, self promotion, and a little butthurt over your guy Ted not winning the nomination. This isn't about god or morality...its about you and your feelings.
Well thanks anyway for your wrong diagnosis Doctor, if I needed a shrink it certainly wouldn't be you I would be trusting. But I know you think public attempts to diagnose me as mentally deficient lofts you up to some kind of higher caste status in your mind - but sadly all you have done is illustrate projection in terms of all that humility you insist I lack.
I'm not interested in what Gandhi had to say about Christianity after his treatment in Africa as some kind of moniker that invalidates scripture.
-
:laugh:
Been to DeeCee a few times. Don't trust any of those bastids! :tongue2: :chairbang:
:beer: 888high58888
-
That was a brilliant post.
Indeed!
-
I just love it when a seared conscience has to lash out with insults and condescension as some kind of rebuttal. Thanks for the confirmation.
Chapter and verse from Yeshua about humility please? You know nothing of the biblical Christ outside of that which you have constructed in your own imagination per past discussions. And no, I have no intention of debating a willful instrument of the god of this age and his wisdom which you like to dispense with great condescension in order to loft yourself up upon your own intellect and self importance.
Wishful thinking on your part, but feel free to rationalize whatever you'd like from your imagination. I spent years in close correspondence with Bishop Shelby Spong and nearly went to seminary myself, I've read and studied all of Jesus teachings in depth. Jesus message as a whole is about love and humility...by looking for chapter and verse to find this you are looking for trees while unable to note the forest.
Well thanks anyway for your wrong diagnosis Doctor, if I needed a shrink it certainly wouldn't be you I would be trusting. But I know you think public attempts to diagnose me as mentally deficient lofts you up to some kind of higher caste status in your mind - but sadly all you have done is illustrate projection in terms of all that humility you insist I lack.
You use christianity and the bible as a weapon...a tool to judge others and a bludgeon with which to elevate yourself and demean those with whom you disagree...much like the Pharisees of old in method. As a humble follower of Jesus teachings, its encumbent on me to counter that kind of anti-Jesus message. Further, one does not find god in a book..any book including the bible, though much wisdom CAN be found...But god is found as stated by this disciple;
"The Kingdom of God is inside you and all around you
Not in a mansion of wood and stone
Split a piece of wood and I am there
Lift a stone and you will find me."
I'm not interested in what Gandhi had to say about Christianity after his treatment in Africa as some kind of moniker that invalidates scripture.
Au contraire, he validates Jesus himself...what could be more holy and right. And a man who can't see wisdom in the life and words of Gandhi is blind to that which is divine.
Fear based theology is the creation of men, not god, and throwing it continuously into a political discussion to make your point is...disingenuous.
-
You use christianity and the bible as a weapon
It is the sword of truth "For the word of God is quick and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." - Hebrews 4:12
Fear based theology is the creation of men, not god, and throwing it continuously into a political discussion to make your point is...disingenuous.
I was paraphrasing the Founders and their letters and warnings regarding upholding liberty and a republic on this thread. I posted those quotes directly before and got the same response from you then.
As usual, you dismissed them wholesale and found those points offensive and decided to chuck out every out-of-context quote you could find that would illustrate our forbears as hostile to biblical Christianity, just as you are.
You're just a willing tool of the god of this age, and as you demonstrated before and yet again here, you profess yourself wise and 'enlightened' - deeming to educate us lesser castes of the divinity of the gods of your imagination and books unfounded as canon and quotes from Hindus as your scriptures.
Not interested in anything you have to say and I dismiss everything you have to post.
I know what spirit you speak from. It is not one I will listen to.
-
I know what spirit you speak from. It is not one I will listen to.
Of course you don’t listen, if you did the cognitive dissonance would be ear shattering for you. As for the “spirit” I speak from, I draw from “wicked” men like Gandhi, Buddha, Jesus, Locke, Maimonides
, Averroes, Plato, and Thomas Jefferson. All men of great intellect and in most cases of tremendous spiritual wisdom. Far more godly men than you or I. I can see how that would disturb you to the point of “not listening”, but a closed mind is the hallmark of fanaticism, not spirituality.
Simply quoting Old Testament gobbledygook...as if it is anything but the cultural perspective of a few Jewish authors of that era, conveys nothing of god. Unless, that is, like many Muslims in the 3rd world today, you believe gays and adulterers should be stoned and that eating shellfish is prohibited by god. Not to mention other absurdities about the world being 5000 years old, a world wide flood, and god turning women into salt pillars for peaking when they shouldn’t....and that’s not even discussing god directed massacres of women and children.
-
but a closed mind is the hallmark of fanaticism, not spirituality.
Unlike you, I do not open my mind so wide as to let my brain fall out.
But, Jesus prophesied of people like you in this age, and the Disciples more than warned about you and the times in which you prosper.
Not interested in considering your 'wisdom' whatsoever or whom you deem 'Godly', because there is none under Heaven whom is 'good' or 'Godly', as such a view eliminates the need for a Savior. All you have done is made yourself god in your own eyes.
No thanks.
-
but a closed mind is the hallmark of fanaticism, not spirituality.
Says a rabid blind fanatical Trump supporter.
Pot meet kettle.
-
Says a rabid blind fanatical Trump supporter.
Pot meet kettle.
That’s funny. I started as a Rubio guy, and shifted to Trump as it became clear no one else had both the guts to stand up to the Left AND the capacity to win. I see all of his flaws, his ego...his blowhard twitter addiction, his self interest, his lack of any ability to constrain his impulsive use of language, his crudeness at times...but the times we are in, and the rabid Socialism we face, call for a “mauler” rather than a “socialite”. So I SEE the whole man, but have the brains to see that with all of those flaws....sometimes because of them...he is the right man to push the conservative agenda forward.
If that’s what you call blind...well...you’re just using hyperbole that is plain wrong. This picture you WANT to be true of those who support President Trump, exists only in your imagination...outside if the rare nut jobs that EVERY candidate has somewhere amongst their supporters (for example the Cruz supporters who thought him the “chosen” one).
-
Populism is by definition unprincipled, it is based on whatever the masses want. ....
So, you're saying Ronald Reagan was unprincipled.
Fascinating.
-
So, you're saying Ronald Reagan was unprincipled.
Fascinating.
What's fascinating is that you would make that leap of illogic. Why would you do that?
-
What's fascinating is that you would make that leap of illogic. Why would you do that?
It's to smear either Reagan or @EasyAce. Maybe both.
-
That’s funny. I started as a Rubio guy, and shifted to Trump as it became clear no one else had both the guts to stand up to the Left AND the capacity to win. I see all of his flaws, his ego...his blowhard twitter addiction, his self interest, his lack of any ability to constrain his impulsive use of language, his crudeness at times...but the times we are in, and the rabid Socialism we face, call for a “mauler” rather than a “socialite”. So I SEE the whole man, but have the brains to see that with all of those flaws....sometimes because of them...he is the right man to push the conservative agenda forward.
If that’s what you call blind...well...you’re just using hyperbole that is plain wrong. This picture you WANT to be true of those who support President Trump, exists only in your imagination...outside if the rare nut jobs that EVERY candidate has somewhere amongst their supporters (for example the Cruz supporters who thought him the “chosen” one).
IIRC, the whole "chosen one" thing was a National Enquirer article, you know, the publication overseen by David Pecker, long time Trump pal? They did a lot of well timed fictional hit pieces on Cruz (Seven Mistresses, Dad killed JFK, etc.), and somehow I think you will be able to convince me Hillary Clinton is the Virgin Mary reincarnate about ten years before you will ever convince me there was no collusion there.
Nice try, but we were here, we saw the tweets, the hit pieces, the incontinent prevarication about Cruz (not to mention 'little Marco'), but Cruz caught the most flack, especially after he won Iowa, because Trump rightly perceived him as an electoral threat.
No one had to worship anyone to see that.
It didn't elevate Cruz to beatification, but the smears did drop Trump from my list.
Pity, too, most of Trump's policy stances weren't bad, even if a couple had been lifted from others, but with all that lying during the primaries, they lost credibility with me. We already had a pile of people in Congress who had been supported by the TEA party folks for promising things that it turned out they would not deliver, so I have had a bellyful of liars. But never before have I been threatened with being branded a traitor, hunted down, or shot because I didn't support someone others considered the presumptive heir to a public office, and the internet is plastered with such from Trump supporters. Few perhaps, but very vocal about that.
By contrast, I do not recall anyone who supported Cruz making similar threats to anyone, except perhaps to assert that if anyone tried to follow through on any such threats that they would vigorously defend self, family, and property by whatever means necessary, something that is a given where I live.
-
It's to smear either Reagan or @EasyAce. Maybe both.
Neither.
It's to loft Trump as Reagan's equal or better.
It's all they have now - the rabid hope that their savior will deliver what they promised themselves he would deliver.
And if not, then to craft new excuses and explain that Reagan was actually worse than Trump on issues.
-
Neither.
It's to loft Trump as Reagan's equal or better.
You sat "ToMAYto," I say "ToMAHto."
-
You sat "ToMAYto," I say "ToMAHto."
PoTAYtoe, PohTAT-Oh...... less call da whole ting off...
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/d9/5c/8f/d95c8f55be1807761c717e4e847a7641.jpg)
-
By contrast, I do not recall anyone who supported Cruz making similar threats to anyone, except perhaps to assert that if anyone tried to follow through on any such threats that they would vigorously defend self, family, and property by whatever means necessary, something that is a given where I live.
@Smokin Joe your memory is correct. But then again true Reagan Conservatives are about the area of ideas and upholding the Constitution...not pitch forks torches and coercion.
-
What's fascinating is that you would make that leap of illogic. Why would you do that?
@Sanguine you have to remember that this is the same person that yesterday falsely claimed Reagan was a populist.
Logic doesn't go into what she says.
-
It's to smear either Reagan or @EasyAce. Maybe both.
@Cyber Liberty my vote is both.
-
Oh the moral narcissism of it all....the surety of your own moral code being superior to the rest of us. Its breathtaking, a fine example of what is the opposite of Jesus teaching about humility. But that aside, just plain full of self righteousnes, self promotion, and a little butthurt over your guy Ted not winning the nomination. This isn't about god or morality...its about you and your feelings. ...
:thumbsup2: :thumbsup2: :thumbsup2:
-
@Sanguine you have to remember that this is the same person that yesterday falsely claimed Reagan was a populist.
Logic doesn't go into what she says.
I know you don't like hearing this, that the truth pierces some long-treasured fabrication, but Ronald Reagan was the quintessential populist.
I'm rather surprised you and yours are not all over Donald Trump for plagiarizing Regan's campaign slogan. 88devil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjkX_IBYQHw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjkX_IBYQHw
@txradioguy @Sanguine
-
Put up an ill-defined and widely misunderstood name like “populism” and use it to frighten the natives. That’s what sleazy politicians do.
But, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Keep watching the constitutional actions Trump takes, not the scary sounding labels democrats and Nevers want to hang him with.
-
It's to smear either Reagan or @EasyAce. Maybe both.
@Cyber Liberty
It will take a lot more to smear me than one poster attributing to me a remark I quoted.
That said, I certainly don't remember Mr. Reagan as forging a campaign based on public opinion alone,
or deciding that what public opinion demanded, the public should have, and he'd worry about what
that meant afterward. He entered the 1980 race with a decided agenda and sold it to enough voters
to win, never mind that he ran against an incumbent who could no longer sell a different agenda.
It will take a lot more than a poster showing a brief clip of Mr. Reagan speaking the slogan that
Donaldus Minimus appropriated as his own to smear Mr. Reagan, too. (Recall: during the 2016
campaign there were plenty---here and elsewhere---criticising Donaldus Minimus for appropriating
that slogan . . .)
But I do wonder what some would say when remembering Stephen Moore, a conservative economist
and advisor to Donaldus Minimus, saying this (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307462-trump-adviser-tells-house-republicans-youre-no-longer-reagans-party) saying to a gathering of Republicans shortly after last year's
election: Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, Trump has converted the
GOP into a populist working-class party. In some ways this will be good for conservatives and in
other ways possibly frustrating. Emphases, one presumes, on "some."
-
@Cyber Liberty
It will take a lot more to smear me than one poster attributing to me a remark I quoted.
{Snip}
But I do wonder what some would say when remembering Stephen Moore, a conservative economist
and advisor to Donaldus Minimus, saying this (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307462-trump-adviser-tells-house-republicans-youre-no-longer-reagans-party) saying to a gathering of Republicans shortly after last year's
election: Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, Trump has converted the
GOP into a populist working-class party. In some ways this will be good for conservatives and in
other ways possibly frustrating. Emphases, one presumes, on "some."
I jut think definitions are being confused: "Popular" and "Populous." They are being conflated on purpose.
-
I jut think definitions are being confused: "Popular" and "Populist." They are being conflated on purpose.
-
I jut think definitions are being confused: "Popular" and "Populous." They are being conflated on purpose.
QFT
-
@Cyber Liberty
It will take a lot more to smear me than one poster attributing to me a remark I quoted.
That said, I certainly don't remember Mr. Reagan as forging a campaign based on public opinion alone,
or deciding that what public opinion demanded, the public should have, and he'd worry about what
that meant afterward. He entered the 1980 race with a decided agenda and sold it to enough voters
to win, never mind that he ran against an incumbent who could no longer sell a different agenda.
It will take a lot more than a poster showing a brief clip of Mr. Reagan speaking the slogan that
Donaldus Minimus appropriated as his own to smear Mr. Reagan, too. (Recall: during the 2016
campaign there were plenty---here and elsewhere---criticising Donaldus Minimus for appropriating
that slogan . . .)
But I do wonder what some would say when remembering Stephen Moore, a conservative economist
and advisor to Donaldus Minimus, saying this (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307462-trump-adviser-tells-house-republicans-youre-no-longer-reagans-party) saying to a gathering of Republicans shortly after last year's
election: Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, Trump has converted the
GOP into a populist working-class party. In some ways this will be good for conservatives and in
other ways possibly frustrating. Emphases, one presumes, on "some."
That's just it...a lot of what Reagan did was not popular in the public opinion or conventional wisdom polls of the day.
Remember George Will disparaging the "Kamikaze Conservatives" who backed Reagan...Bush 41 himself in the primaries in 1980 disparaging what would become the greatest economic recovery and boom in American history as "voodoo economics". Mitch McConnell and KKKarl Rove worked against Reagan in the primaries as did a lot of other Republican old bulls still clinging to power inside the Belt Way.
Reagan was Conservative in deeds as well as words. He continually took the hard right instead of the easy left because in the end it's what was best for the people. It's the reason why he is so loved and his words going all the way back to "A Time For Choosing" are still so powerful and relevant today.
Had he been populist as he's been accused here of being...he wouldn't have been remembered for his achievements as a campaigner for Goldwater, as a two term Governor and as the most important President the GOP has had second only to Lincoln.
-
I jut think definitions are being confused: "Popular" and "Populous." They are being conflated on purpose.
You may be right. Certainly you don't need me to remind you that, even hearing words that once had
clear enough definition, people can and do hear and define them however they damn well please
nowadays. (Remember when it depended on what your definition of "is" was? ;) )
-
That's just it...a lot of what Reagan did was not popular in the public opinion or conventional wisdom polls of the day.
If I've learned nothing else in a lifetime of watching our politics and our baseball, it's that conventional wisdom
one minute becomes the wisdom of a fool the next.
:beer:
But then there was the late Murray Kempton: It is difficult for a man who has enjoyed both the taste of our beer
and the flavour of our politics to decide which has become more sour in his lifetime. (And he wrote that in
1962.)
-
Had he been populist as he's been accused here of being...he wouldn't have been remembered for his achievements as a campaigner for Goldwater, as a two term Governor and as the most important President the GOP has had second only to Lincoln.
He was better than Lincoln. Lincoln should be remembered as probably the worst President in History. No one else killed ~3 million people.
-
He was better than Lincoln. Lincoln should be remembered as probably the worst President in History. No one else killed ~3 million people.
One of the big reasons I don't visit Washington DC is that there is a HUGE monument there to a tyrant!
-
He was better than Lincoln. Lincoln should be remembered as probably the worst President in History. No one else killed ~3 million people.
He saved the Union. He got rid of the South's abominable institution of slavery. His major failing was dying too soon to oversee Reconstruction.
-
He saved the Union. He got rid of the South's abominable institution of slavery. His major failing was dying too soon to oversee Reconstruction.
All he did was raise an army to invade sovereign states, abolish the 10th Amendment by fiat and establish Washington D.C. as Supreme in order to impose the Beast of Statism via economic warfare and confiscatory taxation to feed upon itself.
Screw the "union". Socialism has been institutionalized by your 'union' under the control of the federal Beast.
-
All he did was raise an army to invade sovereign states, abolish the 10th Amendment by fiat and establish Washington D.C. as Supreme in order to impose the Beast of Statism via economic warfare and confiscatory taxation to feed upon itself.
Screw the "union". Socialism has been institutionalized by your 'union' under the control of the federal Beast.
Clarity at last. I had thought your views were shaped simply by some form of uber-orthodox religious fanaticism and a fundamental misunderstanding of the bible.But it turns out its so much more. Fascinating, to say the least. You might as well join the NFL players and take a knee when you hear the National Anthem if you really believe your own line of "screw the Union".
If you hate Lincoln and believe him a terrible president, which is you're right, you are no conservative...rather...you are a seditionist and a traitor. Benedict Arnold, Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest...THESE are your forebearers. Explains a great deal actually.
And FYI, not even a "sovereign state" has the right to hold a race of people in thrall...the evil that was pervasive in the South was a timber in the eye of god and Lincoln could not have been more right in extinguishing that hellish institution and restoring the Union.
-
He saved the Union.
He transformed the Union and made certain it remained under his control. He had no right to oppose those member states that wanted to leave. The Declaration of Independence made it clear that independence was a natural right, and Lincoln himself had affirmed this principle twice before.
He got rid of the South's abominable institution of slavery.
But he had no intention of doing so when he started his war against the South. He also had no legal right to do so, but by January of 1863, he had so much abused the powers of dictatorship that no one would dare tell him he was violating constitutional law.
His major failing was dying too soon to oversee Reconstruction.
His major failing was killing nearly 3 million people to cement his control on power, and transforming the relationships between the States and the Federal government from one of voluntary participation to one of coerced obedience to central authority. "These States" became "the State."
The "new nation" which the founders "brought forth upon this continent" was based on the principle that people had a right to independence. Lincoln revoked that principle.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22552425_1697481386929538_1532032898352500227_n.jpg?oh=4786a39c48cbc68daf6a96ea836beb8c&oe=5A6ABD56)
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22539933_759815627539884_7353301400179390773_n.jpg?oh=3379d87502e8638b863e919a32763233&oe=5A730521)
-
He transformed the Union and made certain it remained under his control. He had no right to oppose those member states that wanted to leave. The Declaration of Independence made it clear that independence was a natural right, and Lincoln himself had affirmed this principle twice before.
But he had no intention of doing so when he started his war against the South. He also had no legal right to do so, but by January of 1863, he had so much abused the powers of dictatorship that no one would dare tell him he was violating constitutional law.
His major failing was killing nearly 3 million people to cement his control on power, and transforming the relationships between the States and the Federal government from one of voluntary participation to one of coerced obedience to central authority. "These States" became "the State."
The "new nation" which the founders "brought forth upon this continent" was based on the principle that people had a right to independence. Lincoln revoked that principle.
I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion but my husband did.
And he hated Lincoln.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22539933_759815627539884_7353301400179390773_n.jpg?oh=3379d87502e8638b863e919a32763233&oe=5A730521)
That one cracks me up! :laugh: 888high58888
-
And FYI, not even a "sovereign state" has the right to hold a race of people in thrall...the evil that was pervasive in the South
No. It was pervasive in the Union when the Union began. In 1776, all the states were slave states. By 1787, the bulk of the states were still slave states. There was an opportunity for the North Eastern states to reject Union with the Southern states when they were negotiating representation, and they deliberately caved.
They also wrote into the US Constitution a clause that was deliberately intended to protect slavery. It is Article IV, Section 2, if you want to look it up.
So when you speak of slavery, you should say "Slavery in the Union", not "Slavery in the South." Had the Southern states remained in the Union, it would have been impossible to eliminate slavery before 1895, and probably for a lot longer than that.
was a timber in the eye of god and Lincoln could not have been more right in extinguishing that hellish institution and restoring the Union.
But that's not why he went to war. He even clearly said he would support an amendment to the constitution to make slavery permanent and irrevocable. (The Corwin Amendment)
Lincoln abolished slavery because it suited his purpose for political power. He had no intention of doing it because it was the right thing to do, he did it because he thought it would help defeat the South, and afterward it would help consolidate power in the South. (White people were disenfranchised, and not allowed to vote in the aftermath of the Civil War, so this helped to consolidate control of Congress for Lincoln.)
-
The implication---without wading into the Lincoln qua Lincoln debate---that one is a traitorous seditionist
for deciding any president was a bad president is an implication about which the most polite adjective
to apply is grotesquery.
I would remind one and all of a pronouncement by a Republican president several generations removed from
Abraham Lincoln:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right
or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
That, ladies and gentlemen, came from the mouth of Theodore Roosevelt, a man not without his own presidential
faults, and a man not otherwise renowned for rejecting what Gene Healy in due course would describe as (and
write two books (https://www.amazon.com/Cult-Presidency-Updated-Dangerous-Executive/dp/193399519X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1508440010&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Cult+of+the+Presidency) addressing (https://www.cato.org/false-idol-free-ebook)) the cult of the presidency.
-
He transformed the Union and made certain it remained under his control. He had no right to oppose those member states that wanted to leave. The Declaration of Independence made it clear that independence was a natural right, and Lincoln himself had affirmed this principle twice before.
Yes, he strengthened the role of the Federal government and restrained the right of the states to revolt and dismember the Union itself. And thank god he did so, or we'd either be living in a world dominated by German-Japanese victory...as the isolated states of the US could never have opposed these forces in union...or the ensuing Soviet menace would have consumed the planet. While a stronger central government is not without problems, a string of isolated states would have left each to "hang separately" in the face of the threats of the 20th century.
But he had no intention of doing so when he started his war against the South. He also had no legal right to do so, but by January of 1863, he had so much abused the powers of dictatorship that no one would dare tell him he was violating constitutional law.
This is partially true. He was willing to tolerate slavery in the South if it facilitated maintaining the Union, but he clearly opposed it as an institution. Once the rebellion started, he made clear in private that he would end this ignoble institution in the South as soon as it was feasible...but he wanted a clear military victory before moving forward.
His major failing was killing nearly 3 million people to cement his control on power, and transforming the relationships between the States and the Federal government from one of voluntary participation to one of coerced obedience to central authority. "These States" became "the State."
3 million people died because southern states rose in rebellion against the Union...and in advocacy for their economic-social interests AND for the continuance of the horrific institution of human slavery.
The "new nation" which the founders "brought forth upon this continent" was based on the principle that people had a right to independence. Lincoln revoked that principle.
No, he in no way revoked the right of individuals to freedom...and nowhere in either the Declaration nor the Constitution, are individual states guaranteed "independence" from the Union.
ALL of the states consented to the formation of the Union. Nowhere in the constitution, is there an "out" clause or a guarantee that states have a right to "independence".
-
I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion but my husband did.
And he hated Lincoln.
Most of what I have learned of the subject I learned in the last few years. I had always revered Lincoln during most of my life because I was taught that I should because he freed the slaves.
For the longest time I never had much reason to question this thinking, and so I didn't. But in high school my best friend was a black guy who was obsessed with racism and especially the civil war. I learned to avoid these discussions because I thought we as a people had more serious problems to worry about than that.
He became a history major in College, and I used to go over to his house to lift weights with him. On one such occasion he gleefully told me that he had just recently learned from his history professor that Lincoln deliberately started the civil war. Now I had always heard the South started it, so this came as a shock to me, and I asked him to explain, and he did. I also didn't think it was a matter which anyone should find amusing, because a lot of people died in that war, and no one should deliberately start such a thing without a very good reason.
I kept what he told me in the back of my mind, and over the years (and since I got the internet) I started looking for the documents he told me about. I eventually found them, so I considered his claim to be stronger than I had earlier thought.
But what bugged me was motive. What motive was there for Lincoln to start a war? It didn't make any sense. Years later, I found the motive, oddly enough on a blog dedicated to mocking the Confederates. A Guy had put together a map to prove the war couldn't have been over tariffs, because the South wasn't paying the tariffs. This map.
(https://deadconfederates.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/tariff01_720.png?w=720&h=546)
It was several years later that I ran across the information which seemed to contradict that map,
(https://books.google.com/books/content?id=rUcWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA73&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U28hNpOGDANgvdryBqBeXn7kLl5AA)
and this caused all the pieces to come together.
The money was being produced in the South, but the Tariff's were being collected in New York City. Why?
The more you dig, the better picture you get of what was going on and why.
It was about money. It was all about money.
-
The implication---without wading into the Lincoln qua Lincoln debate---that one is a traitorous seditionist
for deciding any president was a bad president is an implication about which the most polite adjective
to apply is grotesquery.
I would remind one and all of a pronouncement by a Republican president several generations removed from
Abraham Lincoln:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right
or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
That, ladies and gentlemen, came from the mouth of Theodore Roosevelt, a man not without his own presidential
faults, and a man not otherwise renowned for rejecting what Gene Healy in due course would describe as (and
write two books (https://www.amazon.com/Cult-Presidency-Updated-Dangerous-Executive/dp/193399519X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1508440010&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Cult+of+the+Presidency) addressing (https://www.cato.org/false-idol-free-ebook)) the cult of the presidency.
@EasyAce
Yes indeed! Lincoln open wide the doors through which every progressive since has walked. Theodore was but one of them!
-
...you are no conservative...rather...you are a seditionist and a traitor.
Blah, blah, blah..... you Trump fanatics declared me a traitor last year, in whom who your fellows warned would will hunt, hang and shoot for treason because I refused to vote for your prince.
So I remain unmoved by your declaration.
I await you to do something about it if you are stupid enough.
-
@EasyAce
Yes indeed! Lincoln open wide the doors through which every progressive since has walked. Theodore was but one of them!
@Bigun
Which may be true enough, but wasn't exactly the point of what I was trying to say.
-
Yes, he strengthened the role of the Federal government and restrained the right of the states to revolt and dismember the Union itself.
King George did not have such a right. Why should Lincoln have such a right?
And thank god he did so, or we'd either be living in a world dominated by German-Japanese victory...as the isolated states of the US could never have opposed these forces in union...or the ensuing Soviet menace would have consumed the planet. While a stronger central government is not without problems, a string of isolated states would have left each to "hang separately" in the face of the threats of the 20th century.
So your argument to justify the deaths of nearly 3 million people and the destruction of the original compact of our government was because 80 years in the future the Germans and the Japanese might conquer us?
Ignoring the probability that had we stayed out of World War I, (thanks Wilson) there never would have been a third Reich or probably even an Imperialistic Japan, how can you justify past atrocities on the basis of future possibilities?
This is partially true. He was willing to tolerate slavery in the South if it facilitated maintaining the Union, but he clearly opposed it as an institution. Once the rebellion started, he made clear in private that he would end this ignoble institution in the South as soon as it was feasible...but he wanted a clear military victory before moving forward.
Well that's one theory, but there is another one that makes more sense. Had Lincoln simply stopped the South's lawful Independence and kept everything else as it was, the economic and electoral power of the South would thereafter be permanently turned against him, his government, his backers, and all the other states that sent armies to subdue them.
They wouldn't use New York shippers, they wouldn't use New York banks, New York Insurance, or anything else. They would bite the bullet and start concentrating their economic power within their own sphere. Since they produced the bulk of all International trade in 1860, this would bite the North East right in the pocket book.
How to solve this problem? Bankrupt them. Destroy their economics. Give the former slaves the right to vote, and deny it to the conquered people in the South. Tell everyone you did it for moral reasons.
MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY!
3 million people died because southern states rose in rebellion against the Union...and in advocacy for their economic-social interests AND for the continuance of the horrific institution of human slavery.
When the Colonists rebelled against King George it was a rebellion. English law had no precedent which allowed people to throw off the rule of the King.
Once the founders established the principle that any state who wishes to be independent has a natural law right to do so, the paradigm was changed. States becoming independent was consistent with our own founding Principle, because we had declared it to be so.
Therefore the person who "rebelled" against the Nation was those who would deny this fundamental right to others. Those who exercised the right to independence were in fact true to the nation's principles.
Also you ignore the fact that "the horrific institution of human slavery" was going to continue indefinitely in the USA. It would have remained and persisted as a UNION institution but for Lincoln breaking even more of the constitution to get his own way.
No, he in no way revoked the right of individuals to freedom...and nowhere in either the Declaration nor the Constitution, are individual states guaranteed "independence" from the Union.
The Declaration of Independence articulates a collective right of "the people" to be independent. It is the basis on which we claimed moral legitimacy to be independent of the United Kingdom, and if it was powerful enough to break a 1000 year old governance, it was certainly up to the task of breaking one that was only "four score and seven years" old.
ALL of the states consented to the formation of the Union. Nowhere in the constitution, is there an "out" clause or a guarantee that states have a right to "independence".
There did not need to be. The Constitution was written 11 years after the Declaration of Independence, and the Declaration was absolute in it's claim that the right of independence is given by God.
No one of the time would have given credence to the argument that the Constitution can bind states together involuntarily. If it was entered into by consent, it could be left by the withdrawal of consent.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
-
@Bigun
Which may be true enough, but wasn't exactly the point of what I was trying to say.
The arc of governance always bends towards more control. What it never does is limit control. We thought ours did, but we were mistaken. Of course some people in the founding era were more perceptive and rightly recognized what might happen.
From Anti-Federalist paper number 29. (http://thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-29)
"Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly."
Army of Pennsylvania marching into Virginia. Man oh man did they see that coming!
-
"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."
Abraham Lincoln, 1847
"We do heartily accept this doctrine, believing it intrinsically sound, beneficent, and one that, universally accepted, is calculated to prevent the shedding of seas of human blood. And, if it justified the secession from the British Empire of Three Millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
Horace Greely, December 17,1860
"....many incidents both preceding and following the War support the proposition that the Southern States did have the right to secede from the Union. Instances of nullification prior to the War Between the States, contingencies under which certain states acceded to the Union, and the fact that the Southern States were made to surrender the right to secession all affirm the existence of a right to secede...."
Newcomb Morse, Stetson Law Review
"What would have been the point of the foregoing proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting or limiting the right of secession if under the Constitution the unfettered right of secession did not already exist? Why would Congress have even considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?"
Chief Justice John Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden
-
Big Gun, You showed me a couple I hadn't seen before. Let me give you another to add to your list.
Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.
Abraham Lincoln, 1852. (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln2/1:184?rgn=div1;view=fulltext)
And people talk about Trump being unprincipled.
-
The arc of governance always bends towards more control. What it never does is limit control. We thought ours did, but we were mistaken. Of course some people in the founding era were more perceptive and rightly recognized what might happen.
And others tried, almost right out of the chute once the Constitution was ratified, to unlimit control,
little by little. Just ask the Congress that passed, and the President Adams who was foolish enough
to sign, the original Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. For openers.
-
And others tried, almost right out of the chute once the Constitution was ratified, to unlimit control,
little by little. Just ask the Congress that passed, and the President Adams who was foolish enough
to sign, the original Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. For openers.
Anyone in power instinctively tries to gain more power. It's just how humans are wired. It is an odd sort, like Calvin Coolidge, that has the willingness to hold back the use of power.
I think much insight on American history can be gained if we look at much of it as conflicts between the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians.
-
Big Gun, You showed me a couple I hadn't seen before. Let me give you another to add to your list.
Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.
Abraham Lincoln, 1852. (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln2/1:184?rgn=div1;view=fulltext)
And people talk about Trump being unprincipled.
I have more as well!
"The supremacy of the Union in all those points that are thus transferred, and the
sovereignty of the state in all those which are not transferred, must therefore be
considered as two co-ordinate qualities, enabling us to decide on the true mode of giving
a construction to the constitution."
A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
United States of America.
BY WILLIAM RAWLE, LL.D.
SECOND EDITION.
PHILADELPHIA:
PHILIP H. NICKLIN, LAW BOOKSELLER,
NO. 175, CHESTNUT STREET.
1829.
-
ALL of the states consented to the formation of the Union. Nowhere in the constitution, is there an "out" clause or a guarantee that states have a right to "independence".
Tenth Amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement that states joining the union must stay in it forever, and thus because of that, the right to repeal its agreement to join is indeed reserved for the states.
The Articles of Confederation did state perpetual union, but that only applies to the 13 signatory states.
-
"If the cotton states shall become satisfied that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace…We hope never to live in a Republic whereof one section is pinned to another by bayonets."
Horace Greeley, editorial, New York Tribune, November 8, 1860
"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."
Karl Marx, 1861
And there is plenty more if anyone still wishes to argue!
-
Anyone in power instinctively tries to gain more power. It's just how humans are wired. It is an odd sort, like Calvin Coolidge, that has the willingness to hold back the use of power.
I admit that it would have been tempting, if my state had the write-in vote last November (we have only
"none of these candidates," a vote I cast with no regret or apology), to write in Calvin Coolidge. As
Artemus Ward once said, if you can't find a live man who amounts to anything, by all means find a first
class corpse.
-
Tenth Amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement that states joining the union must stay in it forever, and thus because of that, the right to repeal its agreement to join is indeed reserved for the states.
The Articles of Confederation did state perpetual union, but that only applies to the 13 signatory states.
The Articles of Confederation were overthrown by a rump convention and replaced with the Constitution.
-
Careful guys - all these facts about Lincoln and the start of the Civil War and it's reasons will deem you a seditionist and traitor among those whom have already declared some of us to be so simply because we refused to vote the way they demanded last year.
-
Careful guys - all these facts about Lincoln and the start of the Civil War and it's reasons will deem you a seditionist and traitor among those whom have already declared some of us to be so simply because we refused to vote the way they demanded last year.
Truth is Truth and will forever remain truth!
-
The truth is the truth and you can never hide from it, because it will eventually catch up to you.
-
You've presented no new information thus far...these are old, failed arguments proclaiming that states can rebel and secede. This dispute was resolved in 1865, and to be frank...the issue must always be resolved via instruments of power when one side is set on sedition and revolt. Individual rights come from the divine, states rights and powers as per the constitution are essentially those not granted therein...but there is another stricture, that of real power and realpolitic. We had the right to revolt from the British because we, in the end, had the power to do so...and yes, a position of moral high ground makes the power easier to accumulate and direct. Put directly, states cannot secede because...well...states will not be allowed to do so AND because we did not write a mechanism into our governing document to allow them to establish any moral high ground in such an effort. Nor is the operation of our government so onerous as to grant sufficient moral authority to once again engage the nation in savage and brutal civil war.
Lincoln understood that the Union must be preserved at almost any cost. He also knew that he had the moral high ground, as the southern states were clinging to slavery...which was not the immediate cause of the war, but make no mistake, its underlying structure was precisely the social construct that led the nation...almost inevitably...into civil conflict. In fact, for Lincoln, the ending of slavery was only subordinate to the necessity of keeping the Union intact...and until rebellion broke out, he had been willing to endure the lesser evil to stifle the greater.
I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.
--March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.
--March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address
The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
--March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address
The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
--March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address
-
Lincoln's sophistry is well known and documented!
-
Lincoln's sophistry is well known and documented!
And so powerfully, eloquently, and rightly stated as to elevate him in the eyes of the vast majority of historians as the greatest of our presidents...rivaling even General Washington.
Ronald Reagan himself said "In the party of Lincoln, there is no room for intolerance and not even a small corner for anti-Semitism or bigotry of any kind. Many people are welcome in our house, but not the bigots." .....when referring to the GOP. Clearly, he honored the greatness of Lincoln in referring to his beloved Republican party as "his" party.
-
And so powerfully, eloquently, and rightly stated as to elevate him in the eyes of the vast majority of historians as the greatest of our presidents...rivaling even General Washington.
Ronald Reagan himself said "In the party of Lincoln, there is no room for intolerance and not even a small corner for anti-Semitism or bigotry of any kind. Many people are welcome in our house, but not the bigots." .....when referring to the GOP. Clearly, he honored the greatness of Lincoln in referring to his beloved Republican party as "his" party.
The fact that the victors get to write the history books has an effect to be sure! But the FACTS remain facts forever!
-
The fact that the victors get to write the history books has an effect to be sure! But the FACTS remain facts forever!
Reagan knew the facts. Yet, he called the GOP Lincoln's party. Why would he do such a thing?
-
The fact that the victors get to write the history books has an effect to be sure! But the FACTS remain facts forever!
Au contraire. There are volumes upon volumes of history written by the losers of the civil war.
-
Reagan knew the facts. Yet, he called the GOP Lincoln's party. Why would he do such a thing?
You suppose he knew the facts. I seriously doubt that to be true.
-
Au contraire. There are volumes upon volumes of history written by the losers of the civil war.
This is true! But until relatively recently only that which toed the party line saw the light of day.
-
This is true! But until relatively recently only that which toed the party line saw the light of day.
A
Who's party and what line are you referring to. Guys like Shelby Foote and many others...right back to many southern vet associations right after the war...have been arguing the southern viewpoint on the war for a very long time. More recent studies...actually are trending towards asserting slavery as the clear and primary cause for the war...often in the past the argument had been that economic pressures were pre-eminent.
As for Reagan, if you always assume he knew of what he spoke...you'd be right in nearly every instance.
-
You've presented no new information thus far...these are old, failed arguments proclaiming that states can rebel and secede.
Who proclaimed them "failed", when in fact they are quite compelling in terms of logic and reason? So far as "new information" goes, would you even look at it?
This dispute was resolved in 1865, and to be frank...the issue must always be resolved via instruments of power.
The principle that people should not be subjugated was promoted by forced subjugation. Or was the primary principle that the Union shall not be divided?
Why then did Lincoln offer to let the lesser states go if Virginia would remain? Why did he accept the secession of West Virginia when the US Constitution expressly forbids such a thing?
Seems as though these constitutional principles are getting picked according to the whim of one man.
Individual rights come from the divine, states rights and powers as per the constitution are essentially those not granted therein...but there is another stricture, that of real power and realpolitic.
Divine right of Kings. Look it up sometime.
We had the right to revolt from the British because we, in the end, had the power to do so...and yes, a position of moral high ground makes the power easier to accumulate and direct.
Let us not fool ourselves. We did not have the power to revolt from the British. Had Mad King George III been so bloodthirsty as Lincoln, we would still be singing "God save the Queen." King George stopped his war after 15,000 casualties. Lincoln kept his going till the direct casualties of the war reached 750,000.
Put directly, states cannot secede because...well...states will not be allowed to do so AND because we did not write a mechanism into our governing document to allow them to establish any moral high ground in such an effort.
In the document from which the Constitution itself gains it's own legitimacy, we articulated the God given right of any state to have independence. There needs to have been written no further acknowledgement of what everyone in 1787 already understood.
Lincoln understood that the Union must be preserved at almost any cost.
Why? On what rational basis can you claim that the Union of the Crowns can be broken, but the Union of the States must be preserved?
What compelling moral argument requires us to believe that States which had voluntarily entered the Union could not voluntarily leave? Are we a nation of freedom or a Mafia?
He also knew that he had the moral high ground, as the southern states were clinging to slavery.
Which would have been preserved indefinitely had they remained in the Union. The Union would have clung to Slavery. So how is that a moral high ground? Lincoln even offered to support an amendment to the constitution to insure and continue slavery. How did he have the moral high ground?
..which was not the immediate cause of the war, but make no mistake, its underlying structure was precisely the social construct that led the nation...almost inevitably...into civil conflict.
It wasn't it's underlying structure that led to war, it was the fact that it was producing so much money. Had the slave states been impoverished and of no financial account, Lincoln would have kissed them good bye, with or without slavery. The Slave states were paying for between 75-83% of all Federal revenues, and they were pumping 200 million dollars per year through the New York economy.
Most of the nation's shipping was tied up in moving Southern products to Europe and European imports back to the US. Southern independence meant putting most of the Northern based shipping industry out of business.
Direct trade between Europe and the South would have wrecked much of the Northern Industry, and worse, the Capitalization of Southern ports would have spurred investments in industry in those areas that would have come into direct competition with the Northern industries.
And Worse. Low Tariff trade through the South and by way of the Mississippi river would have resulted in many of the western states coming into the economic influence of the Confederacy.
And worse. Those states who's economic interests had become entwined with the South would have joined the Confederacy, and cut off expansion by the US into the further west.
It was about money and power.
In fact, for Lincoln, the ending of slavery was only subordinate to the necessity of keeping the Union intact...and until rebellion broke out, he had been willing to endure the lesser evil to stifle the greater.
What we have is the greater evil. We are now in thrall to Washington DC, and an "establishment" (which I believe began about the time of the Civil War) now runs the place and cares not much about what happens to it's citizens.
Slavery would have eventually waned away through economic and social pressure. Every nation in the world eventually abolished it, and so too would it have been in the South, though it may have taken another 40 years or so.
But our Fedzilla has grown and grown and grown and still holds the promise of eating us all someday.
-
And so powerfully, eloquently, and rightly stated as to elevate him in the eyes of the vast majority of historians as the greatest of our presidents...rivaling even General Washington.
Ronald Reagan himself said "In the party of Lincoln, there is no room for intolerance and not even a small corner for anti-Semitism or bigotry of any kind. Many people are welcome in our house, but not the bigots." .....when referring to the GOP. Clearly, he honored the greatness of Lincoln in referring to his beloved Republican party as "his" party.
Lincolns intellect and way with words cannot be denied. He was probably one of the most clever presidents we have ever had, and he could certainly turn a phrase.
But the fact that he was a good wordsmith and the fact that so many people revere him does not make his actions correct or moral. He killed a lot of people over money, and then he told everyone it was over slavery.
Not good. In fact, very bad.
-
A
Who's party and what line are you referring to. Guys like Shelby Foote and many others...right back to many southern vet associations right after the war...have been arguing the southern viewpoint on the war for a very long time. More recent studies...actually are trending towards asserting slavery as the clear and primary cause for the war...often in the past the argument had been that economic pressures were pre-eminent.
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/rhett.htm
-
But our Fedzilla has grown and grown and grown and still holds the promise of eating us all someday.
This is the most salient point made in this going-nowhere argument.
The fact that the establishment of Federal Statism and the diminishment of Republicanism began as a direct result of the Civil War is self-evident to anyone who is honest. "Preserving the Union" was for the sole purpose of establishing the supremacy of the Federal Beast and its financial health over everything else in life.
The slow incremental devolution into tyranny and an all-powerful state having spent us into oblivion, trillions beyond what the planet itself is worth - promises that once this fiat system of corruption and tyranny finally succumbs to the laws of economics like gravity - the bloodbath and destruction is going to make the civil war tame by comparison.
Of course it will be interesting to discover whom wins picking over our carcass from without - after it was killed from within.
-
Lincolns intellect and way with words cannot be denied. He was probably one of the most clever presidents we have ever had, and he could certainly turn a phrase.
But the fact that he was a good wordsmith and the fact that so many people revere him does not make his actions correct or moral. He killed a lot of people over money, and then he told everyone it was over slavery.
Not good. In fact, very bad.
Slavery was the decisive factor leading to war, and its usefulness to a southern agrarian economy...and its import to the social stratification of the South. That IS the general consensus among historians, and its correct. Yes, money was a cold hard factor as always. Yes, there were a multitude of other factors....but the divide over slavery fueled the rancor and drove the division that led to rebellion. As for Lincoln, without his steadfast devotion to maintaining the Union....and then his drive to abolish slavery...the greatest nation the earth has ever seen would not have risen to greatness, and saved the world from Nazis, Soviets and a host of other existential threats. Reagan recognized this, as have the vast majority of wise leaders in our history.
So this meme that "Lincoln killed people over money" is just a simple lie. If anything, the South seceded over money. Frankly, money was, is and always has been a factor in every war...but in our civil war, it was not the driving force. Responsibility for the millions of deaths lies in our nation's inability to resolve the issue of slavery without war...and as always...the fault lay not our stars or our money...but in ourselves.
-
Slavery was the decisive factor leading to war, and its usefulness to a southern agrarian economy...and its import to the social stratification of the South. That IS the general consensus among historians, and its correct. Yes, money was a cold hard factor as always. Yes, there were a multitude of other factors....but the divide over slavery fueled the rancor and drove the division that led to rebellion. As for Lincoln, without his steadfast devotion to maintaining the Union....and then his drive to abolish slavery...the greatest nation the earth has ever seen would not have risen to greatness, and saved the world from Nazis, Soviets and a host of other existential threats. Reagan recognized this, as have the vast majority of wise leaders in our history.
So this meme that "Lincoln killed people over money" is just a simple lie. If anything, the South seceded over money. Frankly, money was, is and always has been a factor in every war...but in our civil war, it was not the driving force. Responsibility for the millions of deaths lies in our nation's inability to resolve the issue of slavery without war...and as always...the fault lay not our stars or our money...but in ourselves.
You can repeat that lie till hell freezes over but you will never make it true! It was money! Tarrif money! And protecting Norteastern manufacturing interests. Nothing more!
-
You can repeat that lie till hell freezes over but you will never make it true! It was money! Tarrif money! And protecting Norteastern manufacturing interests. Nothing more!
But, slavery was a convenient excuse, and there were good reasons to go after slavery.
We know Lincoln was at best ambivalent about the issue.
-
But, slavery was a convenient excuse, and there were good reasons to go after slavery.
We know Lincoln was at best ambivalent about the issue.
Never was an issue until 1863 and after union forces had suffered some stunning defeats. A historical fact.
-
This is the most salient point made in this going-nowhere argument.
The fact that the establishment of Federal Statism and the diminishment of Republicanism began as a direct result of the Civil War is self-evident to anyone who is honest. "Preserving the Union" was for the sole purpose of establishing the supremacy of the Federal Beast and its financial health over everything else in life.
The slow incremental devolution into tyranny and an all-powerful state having spent us into oblivion, trillions beyond what the planet itself is worth - promises that once this fiat system of corruption and tyranny finally succumbs to the laws of economics like gravity - the bloodbath and destruction is going to make the civil war tame by comparison.
Of course it will be interesting to discover whom wins picking over our carcass from without - after it was killed from within.
The easy use of the word "tyranny" is disgusting. I've seen real tyranny...people don't get to walk out on the street...or over the airwaves...and spout their opinions as they feel fit under tyranny. People don't have as many guns and rifles as they please under tyranny...and I'd venture most of us here have a broad collection of these weapons. And under tyranny, we don't hold secret ballots and cast our vote for whomever we please. No, people are afraid to speak their mind, they are poor/starving fools cowed by the threat of work camps and mass murder. Such is tyranny, so quit misusing the term for some lame dramatic effect.
If you think what you see here in this nation is that, you need to do a LOT more reading...or traveling. Under true tyranny, you would not be here on this message board spouting crazy...so be thankful you do NOT know what tyranny is.
Yes there is corruption. Yes there is ineptitude and overreach. And yes, the democratic "mob" can threaten real freedoms like speech and the right to bear arms...but likewise, we can still vote for whomever we wish to counter that threat, and we can use persuasion to win a majority of citizens to our cause. So get a grip, and return to reality. What you seem to call tyranny, is simply the vast majority of citizens disagreeing with your personal philosophy.
-
Never was an issue until 1863 and after union forces had suffered some stunning defeats. A historical fact.
That's not even in shouting distance of being a fact.
The slavery divide and the march to war began with a series of battles in congress and the huge compromises that were made as new states entered the Union. Over time, the western world and most people in the North grew to deeply oppose slavery...even some in the south felt this way. But the economic value of slavery to the South continued to drive a wedge between the two regions of the nation, and so led eventually to war. So yes, slavery drove the conflict from almost the day the Constitution was first complete...and the division and rancor it created between South and North was the primary cause of the war. Just because the 14th amendment was not put forward and Lincoln was willing to tolerate slavery prior to open rebellion...does not change the overarching manner in which slavery drove the nation into war with itself.
-
That's not even in shouting distance of being a fact.
The slavery divide and the march to war began with a series of battles in congress and the huge compromises that were made as new states entered the Union. Over time, the western world and most people in the North grew to deeply oppose slavery...even some in the south felt this way. But the economic value of slavery to the South continued to drive a wedge between the two regions of the nation, and so led eventually to war. So yes, slavery drove the conflict from almost the day the Constitution was first complete...and the division and rancor it created between South and North was the primary cause of the war. Just because the 14th amendment was not put forward and Lincoln was willing to tolerate slavery prior to open rebellion...does not change the overarching manner in which slavery drove the nation into war with itself.
Yes it was a major social issue of the day but not the proximate cause for Lincoln's choosing to go to war. And that is an absolute FACT!
-
The easy use of the word "tyranny" is disgusting. I've seen real tyranny...
So have I bub. I lived in a place where I got to watch people get ripped apart by mobs accompanied by "police" simply because of whom they worship. I got to experience a taste of what it is like to be an untouchable and suffer to watch people I love get brutalized, beaten, cheated and oppressed, starved and threatened in the most heinous ways imaginable.
You don't get to lecture me about what tyranny looks like. I've seen it up close.
And yes, what is being institutionalized here are the very mechanisms of tyranny the Founders warned us about, not withstanding robbing us, our children, our grandchildren our great grandchildren of our wealth and property to the tune of trillions that can never be repaid so the current generation can live in luxury and power without any regard to anyone but themselves. That generation having grown the Beast to the point it intrudes into every aspect of our lives, because they want provision - not liberty.
Empowering the state to force us to buy products and services we do not want by overnight vote without a single representative having read the legislation; to having the court write legislation to make what was illegal, legal; to forcing us to violate our faith and consciences to create, serve and acknowledge sexual deviancy - are tyrannies far beyond what our forbears went to war over against the Crown.
Mankind's nature is to suffer evil while evil is sufferable rather than risk what is necessary to throw off the chains of tyranny and slavery that they are grown accustomed.
All you are doing is playing apologist for federally-administered tyranny that got it's start in 1865 by "saving the Union" and forcing a people back under the power of Washington at the point of many guns.
-
Slavery was the decisive factor leading to war,
How could it be when it was already legal in the Union? Lincoln was even offering them more of it if they would just stay in the Union.
The one non negotiable of the conflict was independence, not slavery, therefore slavery wasn't a decisive factor leading to war, independence was.
Yes, money was a cold hard factor as always. Yes, there were a multitude of other factors....but the divide over slavery fueled the rancor and drove the division that led to rebellion.
The abolitionists of that time period were considered liberal nuts, not unlike abortion or homosexual activists nowadays. If there was rancor over slavery it was because liberal nuts were creating rancor over it.
Charles Dickens had it right, and he was very ant-slavery.
"I take the facts of the American quarrel to stand thus. Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it, in any kind of association with any generous or chivalrous sentiment on the part of the North. But the North having gradually got to itself the making of the laws and the settlement of the tariffs, and having taxed the South most abominably for its own advantage, began to see, as the country grew, that unless it advocated the laying down of a geographical line beyond which slavery should not extend, the South would necessarily recover it's old political power, and be able to help itself a little in the adjustment of the commercial affairs.
Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens."
As for Lincoln, without his steadfast devotion to maintaining the Union....and then his drive to abolish slavery...the greatest nation the earth has ever seen would not have risen to greatness, and saved the world from Nazis, Soviets and a host of other existential threats.
A weaker United States would not have intervened in WWI. Germany would have arrested and imprisoned Lenin instead of transporting him to Russia, and Germany would have won World War I.
Europe would have become a Union dominated by Germany, just as it is now. The German economy would not have crashed in the 1920s, and therefore a corporal wouldn't be able to blame Germany's misery on Jewish Bankers, and so he would have never risen to power.
No Hitler, No Third Reich, No World War II, No Holocaust, No Japanese Imperialism, No Soviet Communism in Russia, No Chinese Communism in China, about 120 million people wouldn't have been killed in all these bloodbaths, and you are telling me that we are better off the way things turned out?
Intervening in World War I was what I regard as a pivot point in history. A Weaker America likely would not have done it.
So this meme that "Lincoln killed people over money" is just a simple lie.
It is the simple truth. The only reason Lincoln opposed the states leaving was because they were making so much money from the European Trade, and most of his government, plus the subsidies to the North were being payed for by the South.
Nobody objected to the fact that slave labor was paying 75-80% of the cost of the Federal government. They objected to the fact that it was to be stopped.
If anything, the South seceded over money.
Pretty much. They would have gotten an instant 100 million dollar per year windfall from getting out from under the tariffs and shipping costs. This would have capitalized a lot of industry in the South, and of course, capitalization is synergistic.
But their reasons for leaving are irrelevant to their right to do so.
Frankly, money was, is and always has been a factor in every war...but in our civil war, it was not the driving force.
It was exactly the driving force. Why do you think the first thing Lincoln did was throw up a blockade? It was to STOP THE EUROPEAN TRADE. If it wasn't going through New York, they weren't going to allow any trade to happen.
Blockade runners easily brought in Guns and military items, but merchant ships (you know, the kind you make money with) couldn't do it. The South couldn't ship it's cotton, and the Europeans couldn't ship their goods. The Blockade didn't interfere with any military efforts by the South, it just stopped the commerce and forced all European commerce to go through New York.
Responsibility for the millions of deaths lies in our nation's inability to resolve the issue of slavery without war.
Slavery wasn't the issue. It was Independence that was the stakes. The South wanted it, the North (four times it's population) refused to let it have independence. Abolishing slavery got tacked on more or less at the end of the war both for revenge against the South for having put up such a fight, and to break the South economically and politically so the South couldn't get revenge back for what the North had done to it.
Nobody gave a D@mn about the slaves, other than as a political tool.
-
The easy use of the word "tyranny" is disgusting. I've seen real tyranny...people don't get to walk out on the street...or over the airwaves...and spout their opinions as they feel fit under tyranny.
Yes, Lincoln did that. He arrested half the legislature of Maryland to keep them from voting to secede. He arrested people willy nilly for opposing him all throughout the war. He even issued a warrant to arrest Chief Justice Taney of the Supreme Court.
The State song of Maryland still refers to him as a Tyrant.
-
The arc of governance always bends towards more control. What it never does is limit control. We thought ours did, but we were mistaken. Of course some people in the founding era were more perceptive and rightly recognized what might happen.
From Anti-Federalist paper number 29. (http://thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-29)
"Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly."
Army of Pennsylvania marching into Virginia. Man oh man did they see that coming!
First they marched into Maryland, along with the Army of Massachusetts to subdue the State. The first KIA of the war were in Baltimore when the population rioted at the invasion, prying up paving stones and hurling them at the invading troops.
-
That's not even in shouting distance of being a fact.
The slavery divide and the march to war began with a series of battles in congress and the huge compromises that were made as new states entered the Union. Over time, the western world and most people in the North grew to deeply oppose slavery...even some in the south felt this way. But the economic value of slavery to the South continued to drive a wedge between the two regions of the nation, and so led eventually to war.
Speak the truth. The fact is most Northern people HATED blacks. They did not care that they were forced to labor. Most Northern people's opposition to slavery was based on their own fears over labor and wages. They did not want slave labor competing with them for work and wages.
There were very few people in the North who opposed slavery over moral reasons, and they were regarded then as Liberal kooks, not unlike the Liberal kooks we have today.
So yes, slavery drove the conflict from almost the day the Constitution was first complete...and the division and rancor it created between South and North was the primary cause of the war.
When the Constitution was written, most of the states were slave states. There was little rancor when the nation began.
Just because the 14th amendment was not put forward and Lincoln was willing to tolerate slavery prior to open rebellion...does not change the overarching manner in which slavery drove the nation into war with itself.
Slavery drove the nation into war because it created money and lots of it. The Robber Barons of New York collaborated with the Deep State of government to maintain control over that flow of money. At first they tried to reestablish the control they had previously, but upon seeing that it couldn't be done, they decided to destroy the system that created the money to keep it out of the hands of people of whom they had made themselves enemies.
Money. Power. Money. Power. Money. Power.
-
First they marched into Maryland, along with the Army of Massachusetts to subdue the State. The first KIA of the war were in Baltimore when the population rioted at the invasion, prying up paving stones and hurling them at the invading troops.
But isn't it amazing that someone back around 1787 could so clearly see what would become the Civil War? He predicted that Pennsylvania would invade Virginia.
Yes, Lincoln was having a problem with Maryland, and so of course he locked up half the legislature and anyone else that objected to his actions.
-
But isn't it amazing that someone back around 1787 could so clearly see what would become the Civil War? He predicted that Pennsylvania would invade Virginia.
Yes, Lincoln was having a problem with Maryland, and so of course he locked up half the legislature and anyone else that objected to his actions.
It was only the ability to forsee abuse that allowed the Founders to craft an framework that, if studiously adhered to could endure. Unfortunately, the greed of the power brokers in the North found ways to subvert that, and as early as 1830, Calhoun was raising hell over northern railroad bridges which were to cross major rivers at heights too low to permit serious steamboat traffic, rendering the shipping a monopoly.
Habeas Corpus was suspended, the 'detainees' included the grandson of Francis Scott Key (author of the Star Spangled Banner), who was imprisoned, among other places in Fort Mc Henry. Maryland was heavily Southern in sentiment, and spent the war as an occupied State. The Uniion didn't have any qualms about press ganging slaves to move their stuff.
-
It was only the ability to forsee abuse that allowed the Founders to craft an framework that, if studiously adhered to could endure. Unfortunately, the greed of the power brokers in the North found ways to subvert that, and as early as 1830, Calhoun was raising hell over northern railroad bridges which were to cross major rivers at heights too low to permit serious steamboat traffic, rendering the shipping a monopoly.
Habeas Corpus was suspended, the 'detainees' included the grandson of Francis Scott Key (author of the Star Spangled Banner), who was imprisoned, among other places in Fort Mc Henry. Maryland was heavily Southern in sentiment, and spent the war as an occupied State. The Uniion didn't have any qualms about press ganging slaves to move their stuff.
Or drafting the Irish right off of the boats. As you probably know, the worst riots in US History were the New York draft riots. For some odd reason, if you had enough money you could buy your way out of the Draft. For wealthy power brokers in New York, coming up with $300.00 to buy your freedom was not difficult. For the working class it was almost impossible.
During the draft riots, one of the slogans they shouted was "Our lives are worth less than a slave!" Slaves at the time cost around $1,000.00.
They killed 120 black people by hanging, shooting, stabbing, beating and burning. Apparently there was no brotherly love going on there.
Nobody wanted to be pressed into involuntary service and sent into other states to kill people who had done them no wrong.
But of course we had to use involuntary servitude or else those people wouldn't have fought, now would they?
-
Or drafting the Irish right off of the boats. As you probably know, the worst riots in US History were the New York draft riots. For some odd reason, if you had enough money you could buy your way out of the Draft. For wealthy power brokers in New York, coming up with $300.00 to buy your freedom was not difficult. For the working class it was almost impossible.
During the draft riots, one of the slogans they shouted was "Our lives are worth less than a slave!" Slaves at the time cost around $1,000.00.
They killed 120 black people by hanging, shooting, stabbing, beating and burning. Apparently there was no brotherly love going on there.
Nobody wanted to be pressed into involuntary service and sent into other states to kill people who had done them no wrong.
But of course we had to use involuntary servitude or else those people wouldn't have fought, now would they?
Where does one find that kind of information in public school textbooks? /s
-
Where does one find that kind of information in public school textbooks? /s
Houghton Mifflin is out of Boston, so I doubt you would be seeing any of it in their books. :)
-
Or drafting the Irish right off of the boats. As you probably know, the worst riots in US History were the New York draft riots. For some odd reason, if you had enough money you could buy your way out of the Draft. For wealthy power brokers in New York, coming up with $300.00 to buy your freedom was not difficult. For the working class it was almost impossible.
During the draft riots, one of the slogans they shouted was "Our lives are worth less than a slave!" Slaves at the time cost around $1,000.00.
They killed 120 black people by hanging, shooting, stabbing, beating and burning. Apparently there was no brotherly love going on there.
Nobody wanted to be pressed into involuntary service and sent into other states to kill people who had done them no wrong.
But of course we had to use involuntary servitude or else those people wouldn't have fought, now would they?
Fast forward 111 years, to 1974. The schools in the south had been forcibly integrated for years, the ones I attended starting in 1966. But in Boston in 1974, rioters burned buses so their children wouldn't have to go to school with "those people". The same fine folks who had told us how to live under the threat of Federalized troops wouldn't do that which they would compel. Go figure. :shrug: Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal.
-
Or drafting the Irish right off of the boats. As you probably know, the worst riots in US History were the New York draft riots. For some odd reason, if you had enough money you could buy your way out of the Draft. For wealthy power brokers in New York, coming up with $300.00 to buy your freedom was not difficult. For the working class it was almost impossible.
During the draft riots, one of the slogans they shouted was "Our lives are worth less than a slave!" Slaves at the time cost around $1,000.00.
They killed 120 black people by hanging, shooting, stabbing, beating and burning. Apparently there was no brotherly love going on there.
Nobody wanted to be pressed into involuntary service and sent into other states to kill people who had done them no wrong.
But of course we had to use involuntary servitude or else those people wouldn't have fought, now would they?
Too bad the kennedys/kerrys did not find their end in those days. What a better world this would be.
-
I could see this being a long running thread if there were 21 reasons, but only 20? Pathetic.