And it might not be a bad thing if people in the South stopped inbreeding.
“It’s gone. As long as I’m a New Yorker, it was there, but now it’s gone.”
Posted on 02/11/2004 9:04:18 PM PST by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:06:27 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
When you are a conservative and tend to support conservatives, it will come as a surprise, and an unwelcome one, when you ding one, as I dinged President Bush the other day about his "Meet the Press" performance. Of those who responded, about 60% disagreed with me, and the rest were more or less in agreement. Many of those who disagreed with me said they thought the president had done well with Tim Russert, that the interview made clear his decency and sincerity. Others said I was kicking the president when he's down and that's the problem with conservative pundits, they can't be trusted. My answer is the obvious one: It is the job of a writer to write the truth as he sees it, and if it's an uncomfortable truth, then so be it.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Frankly, it has become obvious to millions of conservatives that the Republican Party has no intention what so ever of ever representing them. In fact, worse than that, the Republican Party has rolled the dice and bet the farm on replacing the conservative branch of their base with hispanics and cross over democrats, in a delicate balancing act designed not to hemmorage conservatives so quickly as to kill themselves off.
These incrimental steps we have engaged in for decades has led to our being a replaceable minority in what we erroneously supposed was our own party. I think each person should be free to make their own decisions as to what reaction to have to these events without the curlish condemnation of those who are merely Republican.
Given that open and heartfelt criticism of the Pres. has become a banning offense on FR and a trigger for foul and hyperbolic vitriol in any 'conservative/Republican' forum I would say that the answer is 'no.'
Dialogue between the right and left in this nation ceased to exist in any practical or constructive form several years ago. (Bill, Hill and Al can take credit for that.) It now seems that honest and open dialogue between competing POV's within conservative/Republican circles has come to an end.
Party lines have been rigidly drawn within and without on both sides. Dissent in either camp is roundly condemned and a strict regimen of party propaganda is the only acceptable expression. Apparently the time for discussion is over in this country.
FWIW Pres. Bush has already written his one line paragraph -
"You're either with us or with the terrorists."
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I WANTED that. I said, "IF".
Won't a right-wing Michael Moore be the Radio Jock Savage.
Won't a right-wing Michael Moore be the Radio Jock Savage.
I'm going to comment on this part of your post because I agree with you whole-heartedly.
There are some on Free Republic who put style over substance... who judge the quality of what is being said based on whether the person is glib or scripted.
They watch "presidents" on tv or in the movies who always have the right thing to say, delivered up with spot-on perfect tenor and pitch... the right thing, said the absolute right way... so that the opponents have no choice but to sit down defeated or cheer the revelation of truth.
They can't or won't discern fantasy from real life.
Bill Clinton was as glib as could be...polished and practiced... and he lied just for the practice of it.
Who, honestly, believed that when GWB was elected...that he would ever reach a Hollywood scripted style of speaking. I didn't... to continually to carp on his style is ludicrous... and unfair.
He answers thoughtfully and honesty. His integrity envelopes every words he speaks.
Forget style...it's shallow. Give me substance... Give me GWB - fractured syntax and all. At least I know where he stands.
I didn't have to put any words in your mouth -- here is what you wrote:
Look at it logically, if a nuke blows (by forgien terrorists) in a city full of socialist control-freaks who support the destruction of the rest of this country, including US. Then in a sick way, wouldn't that be a postitive event for the rest of us.... I know this sounds cold, but I live in the rural south, and if God forbid D.C. or NYC were nuked by terrorist, it might be a GOOD thing for the rest of this country's future.
Spare me your phony excuses, and either own up to your hateful words or retract them.
No, it's saying that your goals and aims for the country, which are your rightful choice, fall very short of ever returning the nation to it's constitutional foundations, which some of us feel is vital to our survival as a Consitutional Republic in which government is limited and answerable to the citizen.
The term "you" is a generality, meaning those that are openly hostile to the fact that conservatives will not bend their principles just because "they" think it best. Am I rigid? As a steel rod babe, respect that fact, as I respect your right to be "pliable" or lump it.
So are you implying that my understanding the goals and agenda of the Democrat Party's desire to flood the nation with ignorant third world masses whom Democrats believe will vote their bellies, somehow pass's their racism onto me for knowing what they are up to and having the guts to say it out loud? If so, I don't care.
Do ignorant third world masses vote their bellies? Yesss, they doooo. Is it their fault they don't have a clue? Who cares? That is a debate that can last days all by itself. The bottom line, common sense would dictate, is what should be the first duty of educated, responsible, patriotic, citizens in the face of such hijinx on the part of both political parties? Does compassion dictate that we throw the baby out with the bath water for the sake of and the welfare of psudo-citizens brought here to take advantage of their ignorance, or does compassion dictate that we send them home in order to preserve the nation and it's constitution?
The position of the Republican Party towards it's conservative base has become, stay if you are willing to lay down your conservative principles while we try to get in on the ground floor of pandering to illegals, "where else are you going to go?". The Republican Party has zero chance of success in that endeavor unless it becomes socialist party lite. Do we really need to support that or do we need the law enforced?
You feel better with Kerry? Do you think Kerry is going to be a better choice than Bush? That's the bottom line.
You are one sick person.
How can I be a sick person since I admitted that it was a sick line of thought to begin with?
So, if I say "I know it's a sick line of thought, but I wish Paul C. Jesup were set on fire by terrorists. It might be a good thing for the rest of us," it would be OK? I don't want to hear your rationalizations or your excuses. Be a man and stand by what you said.
Wow, I don't even know how to begin to respond to this. Actually, I *do* know, but that would result in my immediate banning, nuking, ZOTting, whatever.
I bet you were one of the jerks "tsk-tsking" on 9/11, about how we heathen New Yorkers brought it all upon ourselves, right? Those of us who were actually there and survived the attacks had it coming, didn't we?
There are some things I'd *very* much like to say to you, but since I'm a far better person than the petty little man that you are, I shall refrain.
I find in general that the farther away people live from NY and DC and other huge urban centers, the more concerned they are about the Patriot Act.
And it might not be a bad thing if people in the South stopped inbreeding.
“It’s gone. As long as I’m a New Yorker, it was there, but now it’s gone.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.