Posted on 11/05/2008 11:30:22 AM PST by neverdem
I know, I know. It is wrong to fight evil by becoming evil. But we have to face some serious facts: the people who make up the voting public are not logical and severely mis-educated. They go for “cool”; style over substance. So even though conservative ideals have produced the wealthiest nation with the greatest personal liberty and freedom, people just won’t care. Even those who are wealthy, like Warren Buffet, will side with the Socialists so they can steal from the American Public. So we will need another approach. I’m just suggesting that a group be formed to look for other ways, but consider all options, even unpleasant ones. It’s either that or wait 2000 years for humans to evolve away from such group-think.
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy."
Such a comical and cartoon-like self-caricature of leftist clichés.
But it's not satire???
He could be a chapter in Roger Kimball's Tenured Radicals.
Bush seems to have kept the author’s worthless ass and a lot of others safe the last eight years.
May you live in interesting times.
“The GOP is not an effective advocate for Conservatism”
What a silly comment....
“Reagan and Gingrich are proving to the the exception and not the rule. “
Monumental exceptions! These 2 men between them helped keep USA on a more conservative path from 1980-2000.
The GOP is the only political vehicle out there capable of advancing conservatism... WE have to get in and drive it in the right direction. Drivers are needed!
“Gingrich is very much an exemplar of “the rule.” When it came down to it, Gingrich’s Contract for America was nothing more than a campaign tactic that was quickly discarded once it became apparent that Gingrich had neither the political ability nor the political power to carry it out.”
FALSE on a number of levels. First, it was a positive and real agenda. Second, all the 10 promises made were kept in that Gingrich got the bills through the House, in the end most of the proposals went through the Senate and ended up getting passed. In welfare reform case, we have the signature conservative reform of the era, it worked and it made a big difference in reducing welfare dependency.
“The first is that, despite what the Contract said, “conservatism” has no clear meaning;” Did the contract even use the word conservative? It was 10 point specific program.
Not that he doesnt deserve blame, but there is a serious mistake in pretending we didnt get a big benefit from having Bush for President.
2 reasons: Alito, Roberts
When Heller was decided, it was a 5-4 vote. We had Roberts and Alito on the good side. All the Clinton appointees were against our RKBA. That wasnt the only key decision where Roberts and Alito saved us from something awful.
Now I ask you. If Gore or Kerry were President WOULD WE EVEN HAVE A 2ND AMENDMENT TODAY?
Then there are the tax cuts, which the Democrats may take away in part of in whole, and/or bring back the death tax.
Would Gore have even passed it? No.
Not to mention the many ways that Bush properly waged the war on terror despite the Democrats flogging him at every turn.
To call it ‘wasted’ is simply wrong.
BTTT, everything you said.
How would you suggest conservatives fortify themselves against the RINOs who will actively seek to undermine them?
We have to become involved! From the local level right to the top! Explain that we will not vote for them, they serve us, not the other way around!
As hard as it is, I may not vote for Saxby Chambliss in the run off. I’ve got some time to think about it, but I think we’re getting his attention.
WRITE! SPEAK UP!
And anyway, Gingrich is a believer in the man-made global warming religion, which by its nature calls for a more expansive and regulatory government. IMO the global warming ideology is just another path to big government, by the back door.
IIRC, Newt didn't buy the global warming argument as much as saying that the argument was lost in the media, and that we should use technology to reduce carbon emissions without reducing our standard of living.
Everything I’ve read here at FR indicates that he himself subscribes to man-made global warming, but I will google this and find out for myself. I generally trust the consensus at FR, but it never hurts to “trust but verify” :)
I read it, he seems to imply that he hasn’t completely made up his mind, but wants to proceed on the idea that if we don’t engage, the left will control the agenda. This goes back to what I posted earlier-either way, it’s still a back door to expanding government, but if we don’t engage, it leaves the field wide open for the left who whole-heartedly endorse bigger government. How do we resolve this? I don’t see helping them reach the same goal, only at a slower speed, as very helpful.
It buys time. Temperatures haven't increased for a decade, and have decreased for the last 3 years, removing the increased in temperature from the last 50 years, IIRC. Sunspot activity is minimal.
I mean how do we resolve the fact that by buying into man-made global warming, even if only as a “contingency”, how do we avoid participating in the expansion of government, and increasing strangulation on business and personal life through regulation? Aren’t we then just part of the problem, no matter how we try to rationalise it that we’re merely trying to slow it down? If we’re not trying to “slow it down” by simply opposing a theory that is by no means universally accepted even in the scientific community, aren’t we still, no matter what we call it, contributing to the stranglehold of government and the erosion of natural liberty? And for what? Something that isn’t even a proven fact. That seems ridiculous.
Newt's acceptance of man made global warming seemed doubtful. He doesn't mind green energy if it's done through the market, not the gov't. He wants energy independence.
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.