Conservatives are now the "Blacks" of the Republican Party

vanity ^ | 12/17/03 | Destro

[Destro]

In a discussion on this thread Tom Ridge's Immigration Remarks Draw Fire a post regarding the conservative angst about the recent campaign finance reform that Bush signed into law and that the Supreme Court approved (and the approval was praised by the White House), on the heals of the Medicare entitlement enacted under a Republican controlled government the following was posted:

I'm hearing Rush now. He claims the republicans have ONLY one party to go to. He has put this issue squarely on the problem. We need to vote outside of this corrupt party apparatus.

12 posted on 12/11/2003 12:39:52 PM EST by Digger

I also heard this on Rush and my blood boiled. Rush said conservatives have no place else to go and thus will continue to vote as a block to the Republicans.....and then it hit me. That is exactly what we conservatives lament about Blacks and the Democratic party. Black Democrats who vote straight Democratic and are rewarded by being ignored.

In other words, Conservatives are now the "Blacks" of the Republican Party!!!

I urge the same solution to Republican conservatives that Black conservatives offer to Black Democrats. QUIT! Become independents and let the parties fight for our votes. If we can't take the GOP back we should leave the GOP.

I did not change. My party did. I thank God Ronald Reagan is unable to comprehend what is happening to the party he saved.

[Texas Federalist]

And Bush isn't advancing conservatism at all. Besides the tax cut, I can't think of one truly conservative major domestic policy position that he's taken. I can think of some little things. Rebuke the Kyoto treaty, and enact a $7 trillion dollar Medicare entitlement . . . one step forward, two steps back.

By the way, enacting a tax cut and increasing spending by 25% isn't a tax cut at all, it's a de facto tax increase put off for a few years, with interest. We have to pay for it sometime.

[Dunedain]

Very interesting. I didn't know that.

I'm from the Great White North. Don't have many black people up here. And the ones we have are mostly Caribean black.

[exmarine]

I don't dislike Bush or the Republicans. Just terribly disappointed.

My feelings also. I agree with your take on the politically correct side of Bush. In trying to please everyone, he is alienating his base. The R's can't survive without the Christian vote - the question is: Will Christians wake up to reality and stop buying into that bogus "a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for the democrat" lie?

RINO is a euphemism for libertarian.

[Texas Federalist]

"Where the Constitution is mute, the people of the State have a right to make ANY law.
Incorrect. I guess you flunked that class."
___________________________

I also don't think he ever read the Ninth Amendment.

[exmarine]

Let's not forget the constant refrain from the govt. to the sheeple: "Islam is Peace" - yeah, right.

And what happened to the policy of rooting out terrorism wherever it is found, including those who harbor terrorists: Not only Saudi, but Syria, Palestinians, Iran?

They are fighting this war all wrong. They say the enemy is "terrorism" - that's not an enemy, that's a method. The enemy is "ISLAMIC terrorists". It's just not PC to say that it is "islamic" terrorists - we might offend someone! With leaders like these, who needs enemies?

If they want to win the war on terror, they could issue an ultimatum that MECCA will be destroyed with the next terror attack on the United States...and then follow through!

[Dunedain]

YES. Someone who is realistic. Thomas Jefferson would be proud!

I regard tax cuts with skepticism. Anyone can cut taxes.
(except Democrats who constantly want to turn back any position of tax equity).

Governments should cut spending first to justify their cuts. For one, why doesn't Bush cut NPR funding? It would be in his best interest.

I would like to hear more about spending cuts and debt repayment - something that politicians just can't seem to do.

[Texas Federalist]

Read the Ninth Amendment (i.e. rights "retained by the people"). The right to own property is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but do you think a state government or Congress has a right to enact a law abolishing private ownership of property? There is room for construction, as long as it is based on the original intent of the founders, which the right to abortion or sodomy is not.

[freedumb2003]

af_vet, Man you are all over the map.

Go back to your original bullet-point post and see where you erred, now that you have been schooled. Your assertions have been trumped, mostly by me, but with some significant support by loos.

You can't learn if you don't open your mind. Admitting your mistake is the first step towards truth, light and the land of milk and money. We'll see if we can find a support group for you.

[freedumb2003]

We should probably assemble our collective posts on this and publish a new Federalists Papers. It is encouraging to see how many folk here DO understand the Constitution (although it is a little frustrating when we have people who know very little and won't learn).

[Dunedain]

The Christian vote is very interesting. Sadly Christians embarrass me when it comes to political issues. In Canada, many Christians seem to cling to socialism. Which is insane since Marx effectively declared God dead, and his goal was for man to create his own Utopia. Not exactly holding to Christian beliefs.

But even in the US watching Christians protest war. I have no problem being against A war I may think is wrong, but the embrace of pacifism is immoral.

Pacifism allowed a man to enslave a nation without a response. Pacifists in Sweden and other nations were later regarded as collaborators. It is intellectually bankrupt to take such a position.

In Canada we have some alternatives. We have the Christian Heritage Party and the Freedom Party (the closest thing to Libertarianism). It is sad because I’m sure the founding fathers never intended the US to devolve into a 2 party system – basically an oligarchy of public and private interests. (Canada is effectively a dictatorship as we have one very powerful party guaranteed a term of perpetuity)

[af_vet_1981]

Go back to your original bullet-point post and see where you erred, now that you have been schooled. Your assertions have been trumped, mostly by me, but with some significant support by loos.

Such a teacher ...

You didn't actually answer my request for your definition of conservatism,

Sam Cree asked me twice for my definition of conservatism.

I wrote:

Conservatism is the struggle to retain whatever goodness remains in this country and by extension the world.

Government should be small enough so as not to interfere with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness while being powerful enough to fight the evil that threatens it.

• The death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment.
• Every perp deserves a fair trial and a fast hanging.
• There is no right to pornography in the Constitution.
• There is no right to homosexual behavior in the Constitution.
• There is no right to abortion in the Constitution.
• There is a right to bear arms in the Constitution.
• Taxes must be minimized to promote economic growth.
• Immigration should be promoted and controlled.

I don't know where you think you obtained an education but let's be clear that I need nothing from you. You can't trump my assertion that this was my definition of conservatism. I can understand that a lib would not agree. I can understand that other conservatives may differ on the edges, or a point or two.

And if you need to use the loo by all means go, but be sure to wash your hands afterword.

[labard1]

"RINO is a euphemism for libertarian."

Them's fighting words. As a libertarian with very strong conservative leanings, I am firmly with the Grover Norquist "leave us alone" coalition. Most RINO's are big government, nanny-state folks. There's darn little overlap. I don't like RINOs any more than you do, and have contributed to several campaigns to retire some through support of the Club for Growth.

[Dunedain]

Heh, I found a compatriot.

By not honestly defining the enemy, we have already lost the war. It is too bad the US did not embrace the chance to coordinate with Russia and India in a common force against terrorism. Since all three are being threatened by the Islamic element. (Pakistan is our ally?)

I think the US has 2 choices. Take the war to the Middle East or turn the homeland into a military regime. If the US cannot pre-emptively protect its citizens a police state is the only other way to protect the American people.

I think I'd prefer option 1.

The US has the FBI, NSA, ATF and the CIA. That's 4 security organizations to keep America safe. Yet these 4 cannot cooperate effectively to keep America safe enough we need a 5th organization - homeland security. Sounds like an FDR employment solution.

[exmarine]

My apologies. You are right to point out the differences between conservative libertarians and RINOs. I suppose there are different shades of libertarians as with everything else. I had in mind the fiscal conservative/socially liberal faction of libertarians when I made my statement.

[exmarine]

I think the US has 2 choices. Take the war to the Middle East or turn the homeland into a military regime. If the US cannot pre-emptively protect its citizens a police state is the only other way to protect the American people.

Glad to meet you - it's getting harder to find TRUTH SEEKERS and people with real discernment in this corrupt forum these days.

Unfortunately for us, choice #2 is already if full swing - a police state, and one that still can't protect its oppressed and repressed citizens. When will Americans learn - the govt can't protect anyone except themselves - Congress, POTUS, SCOTUS, etc., will run to a shelter with their families - they don't care about the sheeple!

Ominously, Tommy Franks recently said that he believes the next massive terrorist event in the U.S. (dirty bomb or other) will result in the abolishment of the U.S. Constitution! Tommy Franks said that - and I think he is on to something there. Heck, the Constitution is practically abolished already - our rights are whatever the godless immoral anti-Christian bigots on the courts say they are! They are eroding every day while Americans feed their faces!

[exmarine]

The Christian vote is very interesting. Sadly Christians embarrass me when it comes to political issues. In Canada, many Christians seem to cling to socialism. Which is insane since Marx effectively declared God dead, and his goal was for man to create his own Utopia. Not exactly holding to Christian beliefs.

The breakdown comes because Christians do not realize that the secular humanist worldview and the Christian worldview DO NOT MIX. They are polar opposites. Secular humanists (who are attempting to take over the U.S. now) believe that there is no God, therefore, all life evolved, that human beings have no intrinsic value, and that religion is superstitious nonsense! On the other hand, Christians believe in God, believe that he created all things, that human beings have intrinsic values and rights are God-given not man-given, and that there is a right and wrong. Only one of these views can dominate a society. Secular humanist are acting on their views! ARe Christians? NO! NO! No! They are not!

[freedumb2003]

But you make 3 false statements in your response. THAT was the assertions that have been trumped.

Trying to define Conservatism by a foundation of error creates the kind of "Conservatism" that all of us are trying to eliminate.

If you don't understand the Constitution, you can't be a good conservative -- at best you can be a wannabe. If you don't understand the Constitution and then attempt to actually use it in argumentation then you are a useful idiot and a tool of the Left.

As your guide, I certainly owe it to you to show you how you continue to slog through the muddy path and then claim that is OK because your shoes are brown anyway.

Your previous slam on my typing failed -- no reason to try again.

[exmarine]

But even in the US watching Christians protest war. I have no problem being against A war I may think is wrong, but the embrace of pacifism is immoral.

Friend, it is looking more and more like you have a biblical worldview. I know I do. Most of the mainline churches who are against the war are apostate or false churches.

In Canada we have some alternatives. We have the Christian Heritage Party and the Freedom Party (the closest thing to Libertarianism). It is sad because I’m sure the founding fathers never intended the US to devolve into a 2 party system – basically an oligarchy of public and private interests. (Canada is effectively a dictatorship as we have one very powerful party guaranteed a term of perpetuity)

Tell me my Canadian friend, are they now jailing people in Canada who say homosexuality is immoral? Is the bible now hate speech? Or will it be soon?

[Dunedain]

Yes we all know where the sheeple end up - slaughter.

Isn't Tommy Franks a Democrat candidate.

The Clinton years was really a dark time however. The worse of all was that Nazi who sent US troops against Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Elian Gonzales. I forget her name for the moment.

[exmarine]

No, actually Tommy Franks was supreme commander of the Iraq Invasion.