Ummm...no, sugarplum, that's not the "real" question. If there is a question about stands, it has already been answered. The core FR crowd is for Obama's reelection. Simple.
You know darn right well what conservatism is and don't bother playing games here with me about it. God given inalienable rights, as our Founding Founders understood, stated, fought for and died for, as embodied in the Declaration of Independence.
It's as I thought. You don't know how to define "real" conservatism, so you attack. Shrug.
You should learn a little history, though. The Founders were not whatever the modern interpretation of "real" conservatives is according to FR. The modern terms "conservative" and "liberal" didn't exist 236 years ago and have no application to the Founders or the times in which they lived. They were men and women of The Enlightenment. They were -- horrors -- the elites and intellectuals of their day. Their ideas were truly radical for the time. In fact, in the period and context in which they were created, both the Declaration and Constitution were the most radical political documents ever written.
The core cabal here at FR hasn't a clue about what the kind of radicalism of the Founders means even in our times, let alone how critical it is for us to conserve the Founders' ideas and legacy. What is on display at FR these days is an ugly totalitarian impulse that is the antithesis of their legacy.
Go ahead. Ping your little coven of nasties. Have me "zotted." Makes not a whit of difference to me. You people don't pay my bills, or put a roof over my head, or do anything of substance in my life. You haven't got the intellectual firepower to go toe-to-toe with me in a debate, nor the simple comprehension that it would take to figure out that what you people are is anything but politically akin to the Founders.
For further information see “Radicalism of the American Revolution” by Gordon Wood.
Very true.
After writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson decided to rewrite the Bible, portraying Jesus as an Enlightenment figure.
Radical, to say the least.
Yeah that...nor real conservativism neither!
LOL, for some reason I can imagine you choking kittens to death with one hand, as you type about freerepublic with the other, in a quietly hateful rage that you find erotic.
You have a style that seems reminiscent of the old Giuliani days here when the anti-God crowd was so vocal.
Also, they were (shudder) *FREEMASONS*.
*EEEEEK!!!!*
What?...... Calling you an idiot would be an insult to all the stupid people.
Anybody But Obama thinking isn't exactly pegging the Well Reasoned and Thoughtful meter...it goes something like this:
....."Yeah, Romney isn't my guy, and yeah, he is the most liberal Republican,... but Obama sucks worse than anything ever sucked in the history of suckage,... and Romney cannot suck anywhere near that much sucking,.. so hey...Anybody But Obama."....
It's the 'Anybody But' mentality .........throw all reason aside in order to oust the incumbent with anyone with a pulse 'thinking'... it's simply not a good way to choose leaders of the free world.
end quote
History may not be circular, they say, but it rhymes.
The founders were fighting against tyranny in the form of hereditary monarchy; they established a republic, fully aware of the difficulty of sustaining such; we now are facing potentially the waning days of that Republic, due to the concerted efforts of malfeasants who sought to undermine the moral glue, common culture, sense of history, family structure, finances, and military strength of that Republic, in the service of totalitarian dictatorship.
The problem is that while the Founders had to fight a one-front war, we have to fight on a number of fronts, due to the lassitude of those before us in confronting and extinguishing the vanguards, the camels' noses under the tent, of those first sent to subvert our culture.
The splitting is between those who are concerned primarily with whether their vote is a sacred pledge of their principles, and those, who while still honoring the principles, wish to fight a greater enemy. Compare Churchill's remark that if Hitler invaded Hell, that Churchill would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the house of commons.
I will not vote FOR Romney; I am voting very much against Obaama. He wants to institute (in effect) unilateral nuclear disarmament: and next to airborne Ebola, there is nothing I fear more than a full nuclear strike on the US, or the slavery which would be vouchsafed as the only alternative to such.
Romney presents the problem that he will present himself as the cutting of the Gordian knot, "how do we get rid of the pesky social conservatives in the GOP", especially as his business expertise, combining with the pent-up creative and entrepreneurial longings of the American people (not *yet* fully asphyxiated after four years of Obaama's hands on its throat), will unleash a huge economic revivial -- for which the GOP-e will get credit, they deem.
I fear that the results will be more muddled as a result of unfunded liabilities, the effects of Obaamacare and the aging of the population, and the ticking time bombs, race hatreds, and obstruction of the Dems still in office after this election.
Let us all continue to pray and to work hard to advance conservatism on all fronts: just mimic the left's strategies during their Gramscian march through the institutions: with the proviso that they took advantage of the good hearts and naïveté of those in power in the 40s, 50s, and 60s'; we in trying to reclaim the institutions will be fighting uphill against those who have no wish to share power, and are already beyond shame and pity.