Posted on 02/29/2012 7:28:17 AM PST by Mustang Driver
It’s crunch time. I am not going to sugarcoat the news for conservatives. Hate me all you want, but Republicans have just about picked their nominee. Forget these headlines such as Paul Belaga’s “Romney Wins Michigan and Arizona, but Political Tourette’s Is Costing Him” or CNN‘s “Romney survives Michigan as all eyes turn to Super Tuesday” or the New York Daily News‘s “Mitt Romney avoids Michigan disaster, but has ‘blood on him’ heading into Super Tuesday: experts.” God does not roll dice with the universe, and neither does the Republican Party.
I am looking at the plurality wins in Arizona and Michigan and thinking Rick Santorum bit the dust, and it is his own fault.
The conventional wisdom is that Tuesday resolved nothing. From the Associated Press:
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) — Mitt Romney is trying to capitalize on twin victories in Arizona and Michigan as the GOP nomination race expands to the 10 states that vote on Super Tuesday.
Rival Rick Santorum, who narrowly lost in Michigan, faces splitting the conservative vote with Newt Gingrich as the former House speaker counts on Southern primaries to revive his campaign.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul remains a factor as he attempts to mine delegates in caucus states like North Dakota, where his campaign team says the process plays to his strengths. Super Tuesday is March 6, just three days after Saturday’s Washington state caucuses.
Romney’s slim victory — 41 percent to Santorum’s 38 percent — in his native Michigan raised questions about whether he would change his strategy. He acknowledged Tuesday that he had made personal mistakes in recent weeks and said he was trying to “do better and work harder.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.dailymail.com ...
Of course.
What other reasoning could there be for having nothing but commerce treated as sacrosanct?
Exclusively "fiscal" conservatives are to mainstream Conservatism what "gay marriage" is to the traditional family.
Do you think government sanctifies religion?
Exclusively “social” conservatism, uninformed by small government conservatism is conservatism in the same way the Taliban is “conservative”.
Exactly!
You haven't stated any.
Agreed, but that doesn't change my initial statement.
You hide behind "limited government" the same way perverts and abortionists do.
You obviously don't know the first thing about logic either. You stated no facts. You made gratuitous assertions, and according to the rules of logic a gratuitous assertion may be just as gratuitously denied.
The fact you totally misunderstood what the term "incidental" was being applied to is just "icing on the cake."
So now I'm just going to rhetorically beat on you because "stupid should hurt," and you are too proud to concede and too lazy to educate yourself.
A limited government of enumerated powers that recognizes the citizen as sovereign is the foundational philosophy of these United States and what set it apart from every form of government that came previously.
That you think such things are simply allowance for licentiousness shows that you don't respect the foundational philosophy of these United States and are more ideologically aligned with those forms of government that think ‘righteousness’, however they chose to define it, is more important that recognition of natural rights and freedom of conscience.
That's why all those Founders thought religion was unnecessary, right?
Sorry Charlie, you don't get to move on to eating the cream filling of the next oreo until you finish the whole cookie from the first one.
What Madison wrote was that a “perfect separation” between Church and State was preferable, both being kept more pure the more they were kept apart as far as in determining actual governance rather than in informing a personal morality.
What made the USA different than any nation that came before was not adherence to a religious doctrine, not an insistence that the State enforce religious rather than civil morality; but that the citizen was sovereign over a government of limited and enumerated powers and that the natural rights of the citizen would be recognized, including the right to freedom of conscience.
Our Constitution was written for a religious and moral people. But it was not written so that Government could enforce either a religion or a religious morality.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
— C. S. Lewis
From Thomas Sowell’s favorite quote page.
Learn it. Live it. Love it.
You did, by default.
Without a commitment to the transcendent there IS no concept of "natural rights."
You quote Lewis to propose ANY morally based constraint is bad, when that is, like anything else touched by the libertine, a corruption of the intended good.
I already conceded a religious government without limits is like the Taliban. You keep fighting, because you correctly infer your position is inherently dissonant. You can not excise the moral without losing the sublime rights our form of government recognizes.
Religion is absolutely necessary - to inform personal morality.
A religious government without limits is like the Taliban.
What made the USA unique was that it imposed those limits upon government.
That is the essence of American conservatism - a government of limited and enumerated powers. A moral and religious people is an essential feature of this, but it is not what our government is based upon or what made it unique.
So why did you get your ass on your shoulders at me saying Conservatism apart from social conservatism is nothing but greed and avarice?
You just stated my original claim! What are you basing the limitations of government on?
And don't insult my intelligence by pushing a throw pillow or two around and moving a picture to call it "better."
I am basing the limitations of government on the fact that the citizen is sovereign and has natural rights that any non-tyranous government is obliged to recognize.
You demeaned the fundamental basis of conservatism - and the unique basis our nation was founded upon - as ‘just greed and avarice’.
It is not.
It is an essential feature of a free Republic.
No less than a religious and moral people is an essential feature.
It is FAR MORE than just “greed and avarice”. It is the foundational philosophy of our nation. It is not so that people can make profit by their work that our freedom is guaranteed - but the ability to make profit from work is essential to any government of FREE people.
Look them up. You are as wrong on this point as the rest of your prattle.
At least you can't weasel out of THAT fact.
Oh I see, so tall people are taller than short people by virtue of their height....
You don't know enough to be entitled to an opinion.
Avarice is defined as insatiable greed. Avarice is listed as the #1 synonym for Greed.
Saying “greed and avarice” is redundant. Don't try to weasel out of it.
Nice attempt to get out from the hole you dug yourself there champ.
Way to denigrate conservatism and the foundational philosophy of these united States!
I gave you a fact-social conservatives flock to those who make abortion their central issue.
I gave you two examples, Huckabee and Santorum.
All you have replied is with empty rhetoric.
You aren’t going to talk me to death are you, because so far that is all you have done.
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.