Posted on 08/02/2002 2:40:49 PM PDT by jbstrick
Hannity just stated on his radio show that he has just about had enough of the conservative cannibals on this board. To many threads end up being ledd about news and information and more about attacking fellow conservatives.
He said if he wants to get attacked he will go to a Liberal board.
I have a tendency to agree...
Haven't read all the posts to see if anyone has asked you, but I'd like you to name one. That is name ONE President who has met your standards of "upholding the laws of the land and the the Constitution."
Bet there aren't any.
Sadly, you're wrong, Tex. Sure, some of the disruption comes from Dumos. But a lot of it is coming from former FReepers who have been spanked by the moderators or Jim and are now nursing a grudge against the place they called home. They're the childish tantrums of a spoiled whiners, but they DO cause trouble.
However, they also provide a certain entertainment value in their idiocy, though I suppose it's cruel to laugh at a freak show.
I see. So we'll just continue to the throw words about without bothering to understand what they mean. And any attempt to clarify the meaning of such words, we will smugly dismiss as "sophistry."
Time was, conservatives understood that language itself is a primary battlefield, that words (like Ideas) have Consequences. The Left certainly gets this, which is one of main reasons they have won nearly every major cultural battle over the last 50 years.
Hitler was indisputably man of the Left, a national socialist. Unfortunately, this was a rather inconvient fact for both the Soviet regime as well as the American administration. So at Nuremburg we agreed never to use the term national socialist and consented to promote the official Soviet propaganda that the evil right had been vanquished by the forces of the good left.
So that simple bit of sophistry resulted in 50 years of conservatives being demonized as "Nazis" and a tide of European socialism that we're still struggling with today.
I used to think that way, however, there is an unseen bright spot on the horizon: the cult following of socialism is just that, a cult following, and it is quite easy to denounce and break appart a cult that in the end only asks to confine its followers and to reduce general jurisdiction of the nation and its individuals. The key is not to seek power as conservatives, as power is inherently anti-conservative, but to preserve the spot of power for the righteous that we can protect. Robin Hood never sought power, but to give power back to its rightful owner, and we can do it, the rightful owners being self-governance of individuals in federation with other powers and responsibilities.
(I love to see our Admin Moderators' posts and try to figure out who you are!)
Nope, what we won’t do is allow the debate to be deflected into a series of irrelevencies while the main issue under discussion is swept under the rug and forgotten.
In case you have forgotten the original topic of this thread was that Saen Hannity is upset because he feels too many posters here on Free Republic are trashing fellow conservatives.
This prompted me to make this observation:
Since I have returned — at least sporadically — to Free Republic I have noticed that there are more than a few posters here who call themselves conservatives who really aren't.It is a common ploy for some on this forum to sidetrack discussions they don’t like by turning the thread into a never-ending series of quibbles on trivialities which are tangential to the main point.They are the paleo/populist/radical-libertatian, antiwar, antistate, John-Bircher zealots who have more in common with anti-globalization anarchists and eco-terrorists than with authentic conservatives.
The drums to which they march are pounded by the likes of Pat Buchanan, Lyndon La Rouche and Alan Keyes.
These are the people who are making a pig's breakfast out of Free Republic with their hysterical anti-GOP rantings.
This is nothing but mental masturbation aznd I’m not playing that game.
Bullbleep!
I didn't excommunicate anybody, I merely pointed out that they are sailing under false colors.
When putative conservatives express solidarity with anti-globalization anarchists — as Pat Buchanan did in Seattle — then I say that they are not conservatives.
The paleo who runs Chronicles has stated that he feels a certain affinity with the anti-globalists and that he no longer calls himself a conservative.
I repeat, many here on Free Republic who call themselves conservatives are in reality wolves in sheep's clothing.
Gee, that comes as a shock. Mind if I ping a few people (if you know what I mean)?
Hannity should not moan. No one gets flamed more than Buchanan supporters who are for America first.
It's just a choice for the demonizers. Left Wingers call Pat a right wing extremist and Right Wingers call Pat a left wing socialist.
There is just no getting through to you. I have to love Bush or get bashed. Whatever. I don't care. It bugs me, though, when I see you guys trashing really good people. Why must you have total agreement with everyone EXCEPT Bush? Oh, never mind, we will never see eye to eye.
If I have another choice, I won't vote for Bush. He won't get my vote in the primary EVER again. He will not get money or time from me again. I will vote for him against a RAT. Bush can be expected to keep only about half of his promises. That's bad, but it's better than Gore, Hillary, etc..
Hmmm. I admit to a certain affinity with the anti-globos, though it's clear to me that they are being herded (like cats?) by the usual crowd of communists, peaceniks, enviro-wackos, etc. It's a shame, because there is a legitimate (and far more convincing) critique of the Globalists that comes from the authentic Right....which may explain why the Left has been so quick assert control over the anti-globos. All the better to limit the critique to the fringes and leech it of any power...
Anyway, I still think there's plenty of room on the Right for the Buchanans as well as the Kristols. Neither of them has a monopoly on the truth, and I think it's to the credit of the Right that we have such robust disagreements.
I certainly understand your disappointment. I became a Notary Public in my home state so that I could register voters for the 2000 elections. I hung on G.W. Bush's every word. I believed that he would do what he said he would do. When he "caved" on education and passed a bloated, no-voucher bill, I was crushed. I saw things going downhill from there.
I must add, however, that I am continually educating myself on our American system of government and its history. I am currently reading, To the Best of My Ability, a very well put together book on every president (campaign through administration) up to President W/43.
I am learning that the executive branch of government is not so powerful in so many arenas as I have thought. I am learning that there are certain areas where a president has sole and supreme authority, (tariffs and vetos, for instance,) and other areas (budgets, legislation) where he doesn't even have a voice if the House and Senate are not on his side.
As I read about the very men who founded this country, and what they did and did not do in office (versus what they espoused prior), I learn that G.W. Bush is doing a pretty darn good job, all things considered.
I will vote for him again. I may even keep going door-to-door to encourage others to do so.
Does "goombah" pass muster with you? Maybe you could publish a list of what is, and isn't acceptable to your sensitivities.
I find it interesting that I never heard a peep out of Guillermo.
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.