Posted on 07/09/2010 10:35:41 AM PDT by C19fan
Too many Republican leaders are acquiescing to a poisonous "demagoguery" that threatens the party's long-term credibility, says a veteran GOP House member who was defeated in South Carolina's primary last month.
While not naming names, 12-year incumbent Rep. Bob Inglis suggested in interviews with The Associated Press that tea party favorites such as former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and right-wing talk show hosts like Glenn Beck are the culprits.
He cited a claim made famous by Palin that the Democratic health care bill would create "death panels" to decide whether elderly or sick people should get care.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The Inglis proposal is to be steamrolled by liberalism on issues where he is conservative and wholeheartedly join in with liberalism when he agrees with them (e.g. radical environmentalism, opposing the Iraq War surge, supporting the bailout).
In Inglis-world, liberals always win.
I hope we can agree that "uniting the country" is not a worthwhile goal if it is united in liberalism?
Given the fact of a well-entrenched cabal of domestic enemies, enemies who are now ruling the country by decree and, as you say, "inflicting their policies" on us, it appears to me that we can't do any such thing.
If one side thinks it's in a war, then a war it is, and the other side must deal with the fact or simply give up.
I watched Bob Inglis abandon the convictions that got him into office, line by line and bit by bit. Trying to dress this accommodation to the enemy as the outworking of his Christian convictions does not affect me as he possibly hopes it should. I have Christian convictions myself, but they do not include a guilt button that a politician can press so easily as all that.
Somewhere along the way to falling off this cliff we have dropped over, somebody seems to have got the idea that being Christian means that you must have this soft heart of marshmallow that rolls over for everybody and everything, and won't say a word that might get somebody upset. I have a word for that, and it ain't Christianity, it's "chickification". In my estimation, a Rush Limbaugh with his firm and articulate principles is more of a Christian than an Inglis who tells us all about his conservatism, while carefully directing attention away from his decidedly non-conservative actions in the manner of a cheap illusionist.
"Good riddance" about sums it up.
So did Lindsey, go figure they both turned out to be RATs
See post 14 above to answer your questions.
To address the ‘can’t we all just get along’ portion of your response, there is no such thing as coming together to solve problems when the opposition has no interest in doing so. Can you name a single issue in nearly two years where the Democrats either had intention to 1)’solve one of our nations problems’, or 2) to work together with opposition in any manner? The answer is no. They are running roughshod over the country to enact radical leftist big government control over every aspect of the economy and our lives. There is no compromise with that.
Yeah, I’m kidding, I know these guys never have to do any honest labor again.
“There were no death panels in the bill ... and to encourage that kind of fear is just the lowest form of political leadership. It's not leadership. It's demagoguery,” said Inglis, one of three Republican incumbents who have lost their seats in Congress to primary and state party convention challengers this year.”
Apparently this moron never heard of Dr. Dennis Berwick, Obama’s recess appointment.
Then both of you seem to be saying that we face a shooting war. How else is the Left to be eliminated from the national discourse? Are you both foreseeing armed conflict? What about if Conservative candidates don’t take back the Congress in November? How long do you think that these divisions in the nation can be withstood? And what is the time frame you forsee?
The reason I ask is that I live in a closely-divided state electorally. Many of new neighbors and customers are liberals. My small business depends on its livelihood from people of all political beliefs. A shooting war between Right and Left will not result in a few Democrats being run out of town - it would tear the Northeast apart and millions and millions of decent folks will be killed because of their political affiliation. I frankly do not want this to happen. To even remark that such a thing may be necessary seems to truly be un-Christian. Are you really ready to kill your neighbors because they are Democrats?
Do you advise me to move out of NJ? Is bloodshed truly the only way? If Conservative DO manage to sweep the elections, should the Democratic party be outlawed, or will it naturally fade away? And if Conservatives do NOT win all the elections - and frankly, they will not, in the Northeast or West Coast - how does the rest of the country deal with these states?
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
No group of people anywhere can ever hope to hold on to their liberty for long unless they were willing to die for it. Where did you get the idea that your liberty would come without a price?
I yield to Thomas Sowell on this issue, some months back he surmised that the only way this would be turned back was armed revolution, but he sincerely doubted that would happen.
If I had a choice I would relocate to the South MidWest, I currently don't have that choice, but hopefully if push comes to shove, I could escape. :)
Old enough that it mostly doesn't matter to me, but I have Grand Children.
I got the idea from my parents and grandparents, as well as knowing the history of my ancestors. *None* of my ancestors had to shoot other Americans to keep their liberty intact - only people from other nations. (Germans in two wars, Red Chinese and North Koreans in another.) THAT was the price I was taught to be ready to make.
This is what I learned from my father, grandfather, and great-grandfather directly. They’d all been in American wars overseas. They all hated what they had seen of war; it wasn’t noble, just cruel, random, dehumanizing. They all believed that the brotherhood found in battle could be more easily found in peace inf men were of good will towards each other, instead of giving in to impulses to hate. They never wanted any of their children to have to engage in war.
And each had gone to fight believing that they were doing it so that their children would never have to pick up a gun to win a political argument.
The one direct ancestor I have who was involved in the Civil War was my great-great-grandfather, who lived in NJ and wasn’t in the Union Army. He was however one of the many farmers in the NJ/Pennsylvania area who was brought into the post-Gettysburg landscape on an emergency basis to bury the corpses of men fallen on both sides. (There were more corpses than the locals could bury and their putrefaction was poisoning the watertables.)
He stayed to watch Lincoln give the Gettysburg Address and was so completely moved by the man’s sincere request for civic harmony, rather than war, as a way to resolve differences. He grew a beard, got a stovepipe hat (still in the family), and became an itinerant preacher in NW NJ, preaching Methodism and peace until his death in his 80s.
So THAT is where I got that idea.
By the way, Jefferson made that comment about the “tree of Liberty” in regards to his views of the rebels in Shays’ Rebellion. We know how that turned out. Raising arms against the forces of the Federal government - no matter how liberty-inspired that impulse may be - has NEVER resulted in anything good for the rebels. Do You truly believe that it would be any different now?
So I turn the question back to you. Where did you get the idea that shooting your fellow citizens is the only way to guarantee liberty, something we all want, no matter whether Democrat or Republican?
You do realize that this country was founded when a certain group of people started a war against other people who was at the time their fellow countrymen, right?
Oh please. Don’t be condescending. I *also* realize that ever since then, any time any group of men have raised up arms against their fellow countrymen have been put down, with guns, by agents of the Federal government. Every time, from Shays’ Rebellion to Bloody Kansas to Fort Sumter. And all of THEM thought that the history of our founding would somehow give them a pass. WRONG. How do you interpret *that*fact of our history - all of it occurring since the Constitution was adopted and we actually became a nation, not just a group of colonies?
If you think that any sort of armed rebellion against the Federal government undertaken now would result in anything more or less than an armed response by the National Guard, you’re in a dream world. The National Guard has demonstrated before that it will imprison (for at least a few days) or even shoot to kill unarmed American demonstrators that are in opposition to the government. They’d certainly shoot to kill any “freedom fighters” that committed armed insurrection.
Truthsearcher, you may not like what I was taught, but it’s an much an American heritage as anything you may have been. And apparently it’s more grounded in a realistic understanding of the enormous variety of the beliefs of ALL Americans - which is actually the world we BOTH live in.
God forbid you want to shoot ME because I am not ideologically pure enough for you in some way. That is the patch of the fanatic.
So is your argument based on the fact that it will fail, or on the fact that it would be wrong.
Please clarify that point for me before we continue this exchange.
And it’s not about shooting people who happen to disagree, it’s about defending our God given rights from tyranny. Tyrant come in all shapes and sizes, and just because one might live next door to me doesn’t make him any less of one.
Preacher, I think you mean consecutive terms not concurrent terms.
_____________
LOL
It’s Friday, I’m off work today, and my brain really wants to be switched off. Sorry, you are correct. Misused and misspelled words have plagued me today! My humble apologies...Thanks for the correction.
I think it would be wrong, first of all, to resort to violence because you don’t feel that change is happening 4rapidly enough. If you can’t win the debate because of the force of argument, what right do you then have to force it on your fellow citizens at the point of a gun? Who decides what constitutes “tyranny” - you? Doesn’ that make you a tyrant yourself?
I also think that it will fail. Why spend your energy imagining some armed conflict? Why not actually use that energy to convince your fellow men? If what you want is for things to change, then you’re better off working to convince others to vote your way at the ballot box.
Otherwise, you have to ask yourself whether what you want is for national unity behind your position, or just for the opportunity to somehow injure people you don’t agree with.
I am not trying to force my views on other people, however, when other people adopt laws that deprive me and others of our God given rights, with the force of government behind them, it is they who are forcing their views on me and my duty and obligation to defend those rights.
I do not relish the idea of an armed conflict, I do view it as a choice of last resort.
But I detest the notion that there is nothing worth fighting for, that we must surrender at every turn. Not all our opposition are persuadable. We were never going to persuade the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese to change their thinking, we had to defeat them.
So let me get this straight. Rather tahn work through the ballot box, or sue a law as unconstitutional, you would rather have armed conflict.
In other words, you don’t basically believe in the American system of government. You don’t believe that you have any recourse if another party attempts to deprive you of your God-given rightsd.
The American system of government was designed to protect the rights of the individual, and to give him a non-violent recourse if he believed he had been unconstitutionally deprived of those rights. It may not be rapid, but it is supposed to be fair. It is supposed to be the best system of self-government yet devised by Man.
But you don’t believe it will protect you, or you wouldn’t be entertaining the idea that you might need violence or civil war to defeat the will of your fellow citizens. You use the analogy of the Nazis to explain why you might have to fight your countrymen. You don’t believe that our system of government will protect us from ending up with a totalitarian fascism.
According to you, therefore, you can’t just trust to the system we have. You might have to decide to take things into your own hands, to get the kind of government you decide you want.
Why is it you want to preserve America again? Because it sounds like you don’t trust our system of government very much.
Better that ‘progressives’ in America go the way of the supporters of the Stuarts after the English civil war, or of Tories after the American revolution, or supporters of the Nazi Bundists did after start of WWII. Another possibility is that they go the way the Federalists did after the War of 1812 or the Whigs did after 1852.
A final possibility is that they go the way of the supporters or Marius, after Sulla's coup, or of supporters of the Roman Republic after Octavian became Augustus.
I don’t think you’ve actually read what I’ve written, you seem to be more interested in debating a strawman of your imagination rather than having an exchange with me, if so, you can do so without me and I won’t have to wasting my time.
Which part of “I view war as a choice of last resort” eludes your reading comprehension?
How does that translate to “you’d rather have an armed conflict rather than the ballot box or the courts.”
Of course I’d rather not have to fight. But I am not blind to the fact that sometimes that is what it will take, peaceful resolutions are not always possible, and there are things worth fighting for if fighting is what it takes.
There is a reason why the 2nd amendment exist in the Constitution, that is the fail safe built in to protect the rights of the people from a tyrannical government should all the other protections fail. According to your ideology we really don’t need the 2nd Amendment after all.
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.