Posted on 05/05/2007 11:06:59 PM PDT by jdm
I’m starting to think the whole RNC needs cleaning out. Too many of the Gingrich “I’m conservative but I want to be loved by the Washington media” types.
You made the charges against Reagan using liberal soundbite tactics, now lets see you back them up. Where's your evidence?
>>>>You can't argue that my points were incorrect, because they weren't, so you say "WRONG!" and don't even bother arguing the points I made. You just toss slogans and non sequiturs around.
To the contrary. Of course they're incorrect. I wouldn't have made the charge if I couldn't prove you wrong. So far, you haven't challenged me with any facts yet, just soundbite rhetoric. You haven't supplied any data to back up anything you posted. I've got both barrels loaded and ready to go. I've got hard government data that I've been using to counter all you anti-Reaganites for the last 7-1/2 years on this forum.
Now, take your soundbites and turn them into evidence that you can post to backup your rhetoric with. When you do that, I'll have something to counter. You made the charges, the ball is in your court.
A conservative, no matter his religious belief or which political party he is part of, understands that his primary task is to conserve institutions which have historically shown themselves to be of benefit to society. The Church is one such Institution. And it has been under attack...from leftists who wish to impose blinders on the people and muzzles on the Church. Their goal is not a secular government but a secular society. They are foolish in that regard. They have forgotten their history. The Church has out lasted many of their kind.
It has been under attack from government...a government which usurps the role of the Church every time it gives a citizen a handout without demanding a positive action in return.
The Church has always helped the poor and downtrodden in society. But it demanded a modification of the behavior of the person seeking help if the cause of there destitution was self inflicted. The government makes no such demands...and extorts dollars from the productive to give to those riding the cart instead of helping push the cart. I think religion can defend itself without the help of Government. In fact every time the government steps into the arena with the Church to help it...it weakens that institution even more.
What do you think our country will look like if the Clinton’s should get the White House again? I tend to agree with you about that sinking feeling.
You lost when you pulled out the old "you anti-Reaganite" BS. All the "both barrels" childishness can't hide the facts which I initially posted, and which you countered with blah blah blah.
Here is what you're challenging: "Reagan helped bankrupt and dismantle the Soviet Union so we could live in peace with Russia and the former Soviet Republics. We don't need someone who will help reshape an enemy state--we need someone who knows we have an ideological enemy which will never be satisfied, and must be battled from now on. Reagan signed an amnesty bill into law. People can spin that any way they like, but he did. We sure don't need that now. Reagan fought to cut the budget, but instead ballooned the deficit and the national debt. We don't need that now, no matter how beneficial Reagan's tax policies were."
Reagan DID help bankrupt the Soviet Union... Reagan DID sign an amnesty into law... Reagan DID fight to cut the budget... Reagan DID balloon the deficit and the national debt... Reagan's tax policies WERE beneficial...
Let's see you disprove those facts, bucko.
That’s like saying property owners can defend themselves without the help of government, or unborn babies can defend themselves without the help of government, or our troops in Iraq can defend themselves without the help of government.
Really, liberals are all about money, money and money, and I think HRC will chiefly go after The Rich (however she chooses to define that). Meanwhile, our foreign policy will be of the "We've been bad, world, how can we make it up to you?" sort. Guns, abortion, speech codes...
Ugh, I'm getting nauseous...
Something bad happened in the RNC between 1995 & 1996. Basically there was a coup within the party and the Rockefellers took over. It's hard to understand why a party won record setting wins in 1994 and took both houses ran Bob Dole and his liberal friends in 1996. Dole might have stood a chance had he not let Christie and Susan take over the entire convention and party platform. The GOP never recovered and has been seriously split ever since.
As for Newt? His second career will be News Commentary and guest spots on Fox New shows such as H&C etc. If he is serious about ever getting back into elected office he will have to run for congress again and start over. Many including myself do not trust him.
Sorry but Poppy, Slick Willie, along with Junior haven't left much of the Reagan Legacy to take away especially military wise. Of course they had the help of congress both parties to do this.
I think you hit it out of the park with this post.
What in the heck happened to Bob Dole in that election? His whole personality seemed to be transformed. He seemed so sheepish, yet cranky, with none of the straightforwardness I'd liked about him, even though he was not someone I would have prefered as the nominee.
Great post, great points. I am constantly startled by the things the RNC does, and what they won't do.
Agree. The government has done a poor job of defending any of our rights for the past 40 years or so though.
And leftists want to eliminate any and all social stigmas. With the help of our courts and government, they have made a lot of headway.
Here is an old post I made in 2000 that sums up how I think of our situation in this regard.
from First Things,
excerpt
The problem is that concrete moral issues have been preempted by the liberal presumption of privacy, and the relentless extension of the liberal language of autonomy has removed a common moral framework from our society. Somewhere we have lost our hold on the sense that there is a moral order independent of our choices and wishes.
We can point to many suspects in history as the causes of this loss, but only their common character really matters. It is the fate of a liberal political tradition to progressively consume its own moral substance. By removing more and more of the controverted issues from the public sphere and placing them in the private realm, it conveys the inexorable sense that there is no common moral order. There are only the "values" we choose to apply to ourselves. All that matters is that we are legally right in asserting our rights claims, and the legal order is finally accepted as the only moral order.
The independent moral order has not been abolished, of course. The fact that pornographers pose as (moral) champions of the First Amendment may be the clearest evidence that we still have in our civil society some sense of morality, and within that inchoate germ of self-realization lies the best hope for a moral reawakening. The inescapability of an order of good and evil, which is not ours to command but by which we will eventually be measured, is a steady pressure on our individual consciences, and it is made manifest by the elaborateness of attempts to deny it.
snip
An order of rights without right is simply that. Only if we recognize this do we have any chance of retaining contact with an order of right beyond rights. What we have a right to do may not in fact be right to do. The difference is crucial and it must be embedded in the law itself, because only then can we prevent the collapse of the morally right into the legally right.
Acknowledging the limits of the law is indispensable to preserving the recognition of a moral order beyond it. Conversely, relieving legality of the burden of moral rightness is also indispensable to its preservation. The legal and the moral must remain distinct if they are to perform their roles of supporting and facilitating one another
Sounds like democrats to me.
I agree with all of that, but what I really wonder is what the consequences will be!
She will decimate the military, and then I think we can expect a dominoe effect, with terror attacks, the ecomony, and whatever morals are left that our youth might have, Bill will destroy.
Not a pretty picture!
Rudy’s basic problem and dilemna he now faces is a religious issue. He lost the debate because he faced off with the reality of two “religious” belief systems. Those systems are those people that worship the Living God and the secular humanist religions (whatever feels good, do it crowd).
The abortion issue is just one of those issues that puts individuals in a spotlight to find out what they are made of. Rudy wavered in the room. He was surrounded by “conservatives” who value the “life” portion of our constitution. He said that he “hates” abortion. Why did he state that? Deep in his soul he knows the truth of abortion. Rudy no doubt has taken the time to look at the issue and came away knowing that abortion is the taking of a human life. Many people get their understanding of the moral concept of “Thou shalt not kill” from the bible. I am pretty sure that our founding fathers were heavily influenced by this book of books. Rudy had the cameras that were projecting his image to the secular humanists watching and waiting on what he would say. Their “religious” belief system says that every man can do what is right in his own eyes. Abortion to this crowd is one of their gods they worship. Rudy came down squarely on their side. He surrendered to their “religious” belief system that dictates that life in the womb can be sacrificed if it is for “their happiness.” To pander to the “conservatives” he qualifies it with “I hate abortion.”
We are now at an insane stage in our Republic. We have to ask ourselves “what moral code are we going to use to govern?” Another area that Rudy falters on is the issue with homosexuality. This is another “book of books” kind of thing. Homosexuality is now being crammed down the throats of Americans as a normal and constitutionally protected behavior. Many people have been won over on this issue. As long as it doesn’t affect me… no problem. But, the question that people need to ask is “where is it going to stop?” The liberal has sought and we now have no “moral code” because the bible has been outlawed in public discourse for governing! The next time you see the term that you cannot discriminate against a person based upon their “sexual orientation” think about what some governments have now given us. Have you ever thought what that term means? Sexual orientation means what? WHO decides? NOT THOSE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE!! (Read Judeo/Christian fanatics here.) Why does it matter what people do in the privacy of their own home? OK, let’s bump it up a notch. What about pedophiles? How do feel about them? The liberal will now cry; “We have sexual orientation LAWS, pedophiles have rights!!” What If a person’s “sexual orientation” is to be attracted to children? What is now going to stop you when that person comes after your son/daughter/grandchild etc? What “Moral Code” do you want to use now for protection of your family? What about the rapist? His “sexual orientation” is to sexually attack, he can’t control his urge! What “Moral Code” do you want to use now?
The bottom line is that if we are not going to govern with the Creator of the Universe and follow His guidelines then we are going to reap and sow the benefits of the liberal’s secular human religion. Rudy gets it wrong because he is clearly following the religious belief system of the secular humanist crowd.
Sorry it is late and I missed the spell check button.
I do think she will return us to this “What, me worry?” attitude, with military cuts so she can shovel money at problems which idiots like her don’t seem to realize can’t be solved by government.
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.