Don't sweat it, P. You just have to know who to engage, and who to avoid. It makes FReepin' much easier.
Posted on 05/17/2005 6:15:46 AM PDT by sawdust
Pat Buchanan speaks of American conservatism in the past tense. "The conservative movement has passed into history," says the one-time White House aide, three-time presidential candidate, commentator and magazine publisher. "It doesn't exist anymore as a unifying force," he says in an interview with The Washington Times. "There are still a lot of people who are conservative, but the movement is now broken up, crumbled, dismantled." Mr. Buchanan, a former adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, says conservatism "is at war with itself over foreign policy, over deficit hawks versus supply-siders." Unnamed phonies, he suggests, have infiltrated the movement. There are "a lot of people who call themselves conservative but who, on many issues, I just don't consider as conservative. They are big-government people."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
LOL! Good catch! I didn't mean CONSERVATIVE legislators -- real conservative legislators would be a good thing! I meant the big-government Republicans. The idealogues and the religious right (the part of the religious right that wishes for the federal government to step in -- as I mentioned above FMA, etc.)
Could you please point out, where, in my post that I was anti-capitalist -- first of all. Second -- I call a spade a spade, buddy -- there's not ALWAYS a reason to fully fund every military project or base, and the FMA, and my tax dollars to promote marriage is bigger government -- you'd better believe it.
Let me get this straight, I'm a libertarian conservative, not a big-government-loving, authoritarian pseudo-conservative. I don't want the government to spend money peddling anyone's religious belief system -- just like welfare -- that belongs to the church.
What you don't understand is that what I typed IS THE DEFINITION of "conservative," people wrapping themselves in the flag, while spouting the same authoritarian, bureaucratic crap as the Democrats are nothing but Democrats of a different color.
These people do not fight for their nation, they fight for a party.
Uh...his views on culture are fascist. He wants the government to promote social engineering a-la communism.
That's the part where I start getting creeped out about Pat.
Certainly experssing outrage is a bare minimum. But I just don't see it working. The powers-that-be (including Hannity) will just say "where else are they going to go". That's a stupid stupid thing to say, but to a certain extent it's true. I, for one, won't quit working for repubs. In the long run. Short term, I have stopped giving money to the RNC and sent them back a letter (in response to a fund-raising), telling them "not one more dime till you get a spine".
In fact, I was using that as a tagline here for awhile, but dropped it recently in anticipation of Frisk actually doing something good in Senate. I'm waiting. With cautious optimism.
It has great points, but its Achilles heel is human nature.
So you are saying that men are incapable of governing themselves!
Are you a closet Marxist?
Are you a closet fag? Are you a closet transvestite? If not, have you stopped beating your wife or girlfriend?
So we see where word games and innuendo lead.
I think that most small-l libertarian FReepers would disagree. I personally stronly disagree with the LP on borders and foreign policy, and I dislike their neutrality on the abortion issue.
With all due respect to P. Buchanan, he needs to SHUT UP! He is quoted constantly by the Far Left making the Conservatives look like a bunch of idiots and I for one am tired of this man. I do not know what his beef is with the Bush family but I for one am tired of this man!
Don't sweat it, P. You just have to know who to engage, and who to avoid. It makes FReepin' much easier.
It used to be that conservatism stood for morals and free markets.
Substance wise, the LP platform has not changed much over the years. Today's platform is a little less radical and a bit more conservative than it was 25 years ago. This lack of change is because Party is based upon the LP Statement of Principles, the main defining document of the party.
Well put! I add to these people, all those who wrap their own private foreign interests up in our flag in order to promote an interventionist foreign policy.
Most self claiming small-l libertarian FReepers do not even know what the word libertarian means. They are for the most part libertarian in name only, much like the republicans have their rinos. The vast majority of libertarians who have been members at FR have either quit or been banned.
personally stronly disagree with the LP on borders and foreign policy, and I dislike their neutrality on the abortion issue.
I have my disagreements with the LP also. But the LP's position on borders, foreign policy, and abortion, were first developed outside the LP by the larger libertarian movement. The LP positions on these issues is quite well grounded in libertarian principles.
"Social conservatism will be the death of the GOP because it is such a turn off to most of the voting population. If the GOP ever ran on a purely social conservative platform (see Alan Keyes), they would start getting about 25% of the vote."
I think you are partly right, but only because social conservatives are demonized by the media to the point that they can seem like they are out of touch even when their views, or most of them, have majority support.
But there is no denying that on many issues, the socially conservative position is the mainstream, majority view of Americans.
Most Americans oppose gay marriage, and despite polling on civil unions, they too have been rejected in a host of states, including the closely divided battleground states of Michigan and Ohio. And even if it were so that most Americans favored civil unions or gay marriage, that is not to say they support having either imposed by the courts. I've never seen a poll that asked that question. It would be very interesting.
Most Americans oppose abortion on demand.
Most Americans oppose racial preferences.
And I'm willing to bet that most Americans don't approve of the judicial abuse and misuse of the Establishment Clause to ban things like public nativity scenes.
The problem is that many of those so-called moderate, suburban voters believe the lies about the Religious Right wanting to impose their values on everyone. If the GOP/Right could just drive home the truth that the only side imposing anything is the Dems/Left through the Courts, and that the 'worst' that social conservatives would do is make it so that such issues are settled democratically. They won't impose anything on anybody.
I had a Buchanan bump on my leg one time.
I just put some antibiotic cream on it and it went away.
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.