Replies

I think you are missing one big thing here. A lot of people here may not like it, but it is just my opinion. (I've been considering writing a vanity on this for a while).

Conservatives have failed Reagan. Reagan was not a victorious Conservative because he was a champion of the government fixing problems for Conservatives. On the contrary, he taught us the scariest words in the English language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Reagan simply reminded us that the greatness in the United States comes not from the government, but from her people. Reagan said unleash that greatness.

Have we unleashed greatness?

In my opinion, no.

We took a few years of believing in the greatness that Reagan reminded us of and instead of nurturing greatness within ourselves, we kept looking at politicians to help.

Don’t get me wrong, there were moments. The Tea Party seemed on the verge of restoring people’s faith in themselves. And while they did stand for Conservative policies, once again they missed the principle; stopping with wanting someone from the government who is here to help.

We would not have Obamacare if a majority in this country found the thought of having their butt wiped by the government appealing.

The GOP”e” can’t give us their “e” candidate if it weren’t for millions of individual people voting for that “e” candidate. We can’t even really blame Democrats crossing over. Republicans and Democrats voting for non-Conservative candidates are a failure of Conservatives joining in the cheer of looking for someone from the government who is here to help instead of communicating individual Conservativism.

We need, for the lack of a better term, a revival. We need an awakening that the answer doesn’t come from the next election or the next politician. The answer comes when 300 million people stand up to 300 politicians and say, enough, we don’t need you. We won’t accept your help or your promises.

The only way that will happen is if people start living individual Conservativism in their own homes first. Then, take it to their neighbors, their friends, and their family. In essence, it is a philosophical Going Galt.

You talk about voting for the lesser of two evils, but how often does politics give us any different. It is the very nature of politics. It attracts people who want to control others. Maybe once in a lifetime we get a statesman who doesn’t fit that mold, but they are so rare, we should never expect it. If you want someone who isn’t a ‘lesser evil’ you won’t find it in DC or wanting any hall of leadership. They are found leading businesses, in operating rooms, raising children, even bagging your groceries. That is the greatness of this country. Not politicians from the government, here to help.

Sadly, I saw someone on this very site, who everyone respects recently say “I am not a leader”. This is the core of our problems. We are looking outward for leaders from the government who is here to help. We need to wake up and realize, we are all leaders. It is our responsibility to make the country Conservative, not some guy from the government who is here to help.

So I’m sorry Mr. and Mrs. Conservative. You are a leader, whether you like it or not. Now lead. But lead people away from DC, not to it. D.C. is not the promised land of a future leader, it is our slave-master of Egypt we should get away from.

::rant off::

I think you are missing one big thing here. A lot of people here may not like it, but it is just my opinion. (I've been considering writing a vanity on this for a while). Okay, lets see...

Conservatives have failed Reagan. Reagan was not a victorious Conservative because he was a champion of the government fixing problems for Conservatives. On the contrary, he taught us the scariest words in the English language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Reagan simply reminded us that the greatness in the United States comes not from the government, but from her people. Reagan said unleash that greatness. Okay, but so far I'm not getting what I've supposedly missed. Is this not inherent with a move back to the Right? It's my take that both of us think it is.

Have we unleashed greatness? In my opinion, no. Once again, I'm not convinced we're at odds here. Of course we haven't. We've been enslaving our citizens to the federal government's whims. This is something that would be corrected, with a move back toward the right. Dismantling the encroaching government is the ultimate goal. Do any of us disagree with this? What was the ultimate emphasis of my comments at the top of this thread, if not this?

We took a few years of believing in the greatness that Reagan reminded us of and instead of nurturing greatness within ourselves, we kept looking at politicians to help. That sounds all well and good, but who has the power to strike down Leftist legislation? Do you?. If so, do it and lets be done with it. It is our federal elected Representatives that have this power. And controling who gets access to that power is the perview of the Republican party at present. Therefore it is our duty to beat it over the head until it gets Conservative religion. That will serve to unleash what you want to have unleashed.

Don’t get me wrong, there were moments. The Tea Party seemed on the verge of restoring people’s faith in themselves. And while they did stand for Conservative policies, once again they missed the principle; stopping with wanting someone from the government who is here to help. Look, I'm willing to support the Tea Party, the Republican Party, and any other party even the Democrat Party IF that particular party sets it's goal to reduce the size and impositions of our federal government.

Let me run this by you, so you'll understand where I'm coming from. For the Tea Party to be successful in what you want it to do, it's members will still have to be elected to office in Washington, D. C. That's because their numbers in sufficint strength would be needed to roll back Leftist legislation. I hear what you are saying about power in Washington, D. C. vs the general citizen and all, but our government being there, that is where the oppressive federal government must be countered.

Does that start with the grass roots? Sure. What are we if not the grass roots? And where does public opinion begin to change, if not with the voicing of thoughts from people in our midst? Am I not advocating for the unleashing of our citizens here?

We would not have Obamacare if a majority in this country did not fouind the thought of having their butt wiped by the government appealing. Pardon my change here. I think this is what you meant. I agree with this thought, if this is in fact what you meant. Once again though, we're looking at Leftist legislation that must be struck down by our Representatives in Washington, D. C.

Do you get what I'm saying? Either we find a way to change the direction the RNC wants to take us in, or we develop a new party and get their elected officials to do it. One way or another, this must wind up being addressed federally.

Please don't mistake this as calling for the Federal Government to rescue us. NO! It is the exact opposite. It is demanding that the Federal Government STOP rescuing us. The Federal Government must get the hell out of our daily lives. That is the unleashing that Reagan was advocating for. Let's look at what you said again.

Conservatives have failed Reagan. Reagan was not a victorious Conservative because he was a champion of the government fixing problems for Conservatives. On the contrary, he taught us the scariest words in the English language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Reagan simply reminded us that the greatness in the United States comes not from the government, but from her people. Reagan said unleash that greatness.

Who failed Reagan? Conservatives? No, not at all. Liberal Republicans did. Conservatives have been admonishing the Leftist RNC to get back on track, and the RNC has been telling us to screw off.

No Reagan was not victorious due to being the champion of the government fixing problems for us. None the less, it was Reagan who tried to put a more Conservative slant on things and thereby did do something to help us. Please don't confuse demanding the government strike down Leftist legislation and programs, with demanding the government start more of them for us. Reagan very much did support the government doing things for us. That's why he got elected. He ran for public office to END some of the Leftist things the government was doing. That is something good the government can do for us, and we must demand this. If he didn't believe in doing that, he wouldn't have run for office. Should we advocate for the government doing more for us? Hell no. That's not what I am advocating for at all. I am advocating for it to do far less, between 85 and 90% to be exact.

The GOP”e” can’t give us their “e” candidate if it weren’t for millions of individual people voting for that “e” candidate. We can’t even really blame Democrats crossing over. Republicans and Democrats voting for non-Conservative candidates are a failure of Conservatives joining in the cheer of looking for someone from the government who is here to help instead of communicating individual Conservativism.

Once again, Conservatives don't join in to do this. Leftists do. Please don't address Conservatives as having a contingent that are Leftists. That animal DOES NOT exist. Once you advocate for Leftist candidates or policy, you're a Leftist, NOT a Conservative. You may be a Leftist Republican, but you are NEVER a Leftist Conservative.

I understand what you are trying to say here, but the way you're wording it, it's not working for me. I don't think it would work for you either, if you understood what it says to me.

If every private sector person in this nation was Conservative, they could not change our government's legislation. It will always be the case, that groups of elected officials must join to strike down Leftist legislation. Demanding government take these corrective measures is not evil. Ronald Reagan would endorse this 100%.

We ARE NOT asking the government to do more. We ARE asking it to do far less. That is good.

We need, for the lack of a better term, a revival. We need an awakening that the answer doesn’t come from the next election or the next politician.

One of these days you need to post a long explanation of what you envision being a stronger better government than the one we have, because you're laying waste to the one we have with your comments here. We don't need to try to elect good people with an election? Say what? Oh yes we do.

The answer comes when 300 million people stand up to 300 politicians and say, enough, we don’t need you. We won’t accept your help or your promises.

We are a Constitutional Republic. We do need sound federal officials. Saying we don't is tantamount to saying our Founding Fathers were idiots, and our Founding Documents are worthless pieces of paper. Do we need Leftist federal officials? No. Do we need federal officials that would turn back the Leftist legislation? Undoubtedly. Ronald Reagan never advocated for anything more or less. That's what he was doing.

The only way that will happen is if people start living individual Conservativism in their own homes first. Then, take it to their neighbors, their friends, and their family. In essence, it is a philosophical Going Galt.

Okay, and when we're no longer a Constitutional Republic, then what?

You talk about voting for the lesser of two evils, but how often does politics give us any different. It is the very nature of politics. It attracts people who want to control others. Maybe once in a lifetime we get a statesman who doesn’t fit that mold, but they are so rare, we should never expect it. If you want someone who isn’t a ‘lesser evil’ you won’t find it in DC or wanting any hall of leadership. They are found leading businesses, in operating rooms, raising children, even bagging your groceries. That is the greatness of this country. Not politicians from the government, here to help.

It sounds to me as if what you advocate for in the end, is no government whatsoever. That is impractical. The Holy Trinity itself is a form of governance.

I understand your motives, and I'm sure we agree about many things, but disolving our federal government is not one of them. It has become wicked, but cutting off our nose to spite our face is defeatist. We must work to get a majority of Conservative minded people elected to public office. We must get the government out of our lives, the Lefist legislation rolled back, the Leftist give-aways eliminated. To that end, I have taken the Republican party to task. I am never going to suggest we don't need any leadership whatsoever, because that is the reality of local, state, and federal communities.

Some form of leadership is required. It's alway going to be government, no matter what name you chose to call it.

Sadly, I saw someone on this very site, who everyone respects recently say “I am not a leader”. This is the core of our problems. We are looking outward for leaders from the government who is here to help. We need to wake up and realize, we are all leaders. It is our responsibility to make the country Conservative, not some guy from the government who is here to help.

You have just made the case for us not needing a government, and then you lament the fact that one person refuses to think of himself as a leader, as the core of our problem.

You have been advocating for a society with no leaders. Now you want leaders? You have been advocating for people to be Conservative, but not advocate for leaders who could help. LOL, you're all over the map.

So I’m sorry Mr. and Mrs. Conservative. You are a leader, whether you like it or not. Now lead. But lead people away from DC, not to it. D.C. is not the promised land of a future leader, it is our slave-master of Egypt we should get away from.

Horse pucky.

Who do you suggest be in charge of our military, it's generals, when the military will be used, and when that use will be outside our shores, so we don't have to fight here on our soil again and again.

Who do you suggest hold the nuclear football? Should we just pass the thing around to individual citizens every 45 days? Who decides which citizen?

Who represents our views overseas? Do we simply disappear from the international stage, our interests not presented or defended there?

Some form of government is required for these and other important things.

Reasoned trade policies need to be devised and implemented. Do we simply contact other governments as individuals, and form 310 million individual trade policies with them?

Do 310 million different voices negotiate individual agreements with people like Kadaffy, the leadership of China, Syria, North Korea and others?

I realize that it is important to read books, and there are a number of excellent ideas presented in Ayn Rands books. You still can't toss everything overboard and watch 310 million people go postal individually. In the end you still wind up with local government. Rather than watch local government go south, you'll have regional government. Rather than watch those go south, you'll have a federal government.

China lobs five nuclear weapons across the Pacific onto our shores. Our response? Wait just a few weeks or months, we need to hold a national vote on what to do.

Fix the government we've got. End of story.

Until a better government is spelled out in precise deatail, I'm sticking with our Founding Fathers and Founding Documents.

You can build the best steel framework a man can for a new structure. If the rest of the crew comes along and puts in sub-par plumbing, electrical, dry-wall, cement, and other fixtures, the structure will not last long.

We have nobody to blame but ourselves for not demanding more of our secondary contractors. Remove them from the job site, and replace them with sound craftsmen.

They'll get the job done right.

If I'm misreading you here, please correct me.

::rant off::