Posted on 04/07/2016 1:13:37 PM PDT by writer33
Let me clarify this before we go any further: I am not writing this to pick a fight with anyone or to start any more unnecessary intra-party squabbles. I am only writing this to give you an authentic account of my experiences with some well-known conservative public figures to help clear the toxic air enveloping this electoral season.
If you are a true conservative, passionate libertarian or authentic Republican, there are few things more insulting than being labeled a “sell-out.” Actually, there is one thing: being labeled a “sell-out” when you’ve dedicated most of your life to exposing sell-outs. Why am I writing this you ask? Because the current GOP nominating contest for the presidency is tearing our movement to shreds and the rancid process is turning tested allies into fabricated enemies.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
Cruz is supported by the GOPe — ask yourselves, why?
The GOPe is in bed with the Democrats for a Hillary presidency.
See:
Tech billionaires (major Dem donors) plot with GOP leaders at exclusive island resort to stop Trump
Agreed, except there is nothing potential about the felonious behavior. That is why I have posted this several times (usually to receive anti-Trump and anti-Cruz responses):
Cruz and Trump agree far more than 80% of the time (see my tagline from Ronald Reagan). They should be friends and allies, and we should treat both of them as such.
Actually, by examining the fundamental ideas underlying the ideology of the "progressive" movement with its bent toward socialism, one might better understand that Bernie and Hillary are not far apart on the major issues.
The absolute, coercive and desperate determination of liberals/progressives on critical matters of the day may be better understood when the following light is shed upon it. See especially the first paragraph of the following:
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
No use.
The Cruz flock of geese believe Cruz and his pal Beck, are the Ark of the Covenant.
He’s the TROJAN HORSE that will attempt to bring us Paul Ryan as the nominee.
Dying to know exactly what the Trojan is promised for his services as the Establishment mule.
Sorry, innovative, no sale -— but nice try.
Sigh . . .
Didn’t even bother to read the piece, did you?
“They should be friends and allies...”
Maybe, but they’re not, and if they aren’t, you can hardly expect their followers to be.
The leaders have got to lead, cuz nobody else is going to do it.
“Cruz is supported by the GOPe — ask yourselves, why?”
Because at this point he’s the only candidate that has ANY chance of beating Trump. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and all that. Not long ago it was clear the GOPe wanted Cruz gone as much, if not more, as Trump.
“The Cruz flock of geese believe Cruz and his pal Beck, are the Ark of the Covenant.”
No, this is just what you’ve convinced yourself that they believe, so that you can safely dehumanize them and relieve yourself of any guilt when you spew your vitriol at them.
The fiscal time bomb continues to tick.
All the character assassination in the world isn’t going to slow the countdown.
As Boogieman notes...did you even read the article?
This vicious hatred between some Cruz & Trump (& “neither”) supporters is way out of line.
It’s OK to prefer one over the other, rather than imputing nasty conspiracy theories and berating fellow “generally conservative” supporters worse than our avowed enemies on the Left.
“Didn’t even bother to read the piece, did you?”
Neither did Rita.
Cruz and Trump agree far more than 80% of the time (see my tagline from Ronald Reagan). They should be friends and allies, and we should treat both of them as such.
<><><><
We’re going to do what they, the candidates, are incapable of? Doubtful.
Their supporters will mirror the candidate’s behavior towards the other.
If we set a better example, they should follow. It’s worth it, since Hillary would be the second most destructive occupant of our White House in history, and we cannot afford that after the current communist.
Cruz and Trump agree far more than 80% of the time (see my tagline from Ronald Reagan). They should be friends and allies, and we should treat both of them as such.
They are posturing for political reasons - showmanship. We should rise above that.
Emo Philips:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
I’ve said since the beginning my grandest fantasy ticket would be Trump/Cruz.
It’s beginning to look like the only way to prevent the GOPe from screwing all of us, and settling for president Hillary, is for them to put that together themselves.
When Ted Cruz joined the Left in blaming Trump for the violence at the Chicago rallies Cruz committed an unpardonable sin.
Any “friendly-fire” directed at Cruz is well-earned. And deserved.
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.