Posted on 02/17/2007 9:22:00 PM PST by FairOpinion
This wisp of a notion is simply this: Maybe a Democrat should win in 2008.
Personally, I don’t believe in this poltergeist, at least not yet. But every now and then, I must confess, I do shiver from its touch.
The idea goes something like this: If you believe that the war on terror is real — really real — then you think it is inevitable that more and bloodier conflicts with radical Islam are on the way, regardless of who is in the White House. If the clash of civilizations is afoot, then the issues separating Democrats and Republicans are as pressing as whether the captain of the Titanic is going to have fish or chicken for dinner. There’s a showdown coming. Period. Full stop. My task isn’t to convince you that this view is correct (though I basically believe it is), but merely that it is honestly and firmly held by many on the right and by a comparative handful on the left.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
You're talking to a "stoned" wall.
Of course, it's nonsense, but it was not meant to be mordant, I rather thought of it as trying to be humorous with a touch of sarcasm and a dash of insanity in it, to spice up the plain vanilla question that was posed.
But mordant was good, acceptable, though I thought it would have a pinch too much acrimony in it for my taste. Mordantly yours, CutePuppy.
Adios, ingrate.
What he is (almost) suggesting is exactly what many suggested in Germany in 1932.
People from all parts of the political spectrum suggested that it might be a good thing for the Nazis to win.
Their thinking was that once the Nazis got real responsibility they would become more responsible.
It didn't quite work out that way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gcruse counters:
It sure didn't. The Nazis were defeated by a Republican presid--- Oh, wait a minute. Democrats were in office. And we haven't won a war since. The question isn't how to make democrats respectable, it's how to get them to join us in winning a truly existential war, the one on terror, not the one on drugs, you idiots.
With the press and half the country against us, we can't win it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well put gcruse. --- The fact that the Democratic Party is controlled by socialists is not ~the~ issue here.
The issue should be on winning what is building up to be the 3rd world war.
Hysterically contending that all democrats are nazi's [as a political ploy], -- is as you say, self defeating rhetoric.
Like it or not, a majority of americans, on both left & right, have 'bought into' various socialistic programs. -- Conservatives have to learn to deal with that fact in a Constitutional fashion, or [politically] lose the Republic.
Indeed.
Eight years of socialist stewardship will lose [forever] the battle with illegals and islamic terror. It will be too late. It really won't matter if Republicans get back congress and the White House then.
"Hysterically contending that all democrats are nazi's [as a political ploy], -- is as you say, self defeating rhetoric."
Yeah, that's exactly what I did. Sheesh.
But to expect intelligent comments from a person who still hasn't figured out the difference between using a possessive (Nazi's) and plural (Nazis) noun is a waste of time.
I brought up an exact historical parallel. Gaining power does not guarantee that a party will begin to act responsibly. Of course it went over your head.
But why should I (or anyone for that matter) waste my time on you?
You know, just because the Muslims like to sell the stuff, don't think they won't kill you for your bong when the time comes.
While often right, Michael Savage is on the DEAD-wrong side of that particular fence.
Most liberals are "pacifists", they won't fight no matter what.
Hillary could be beheaded by Muslims on the Senate floor at high noon on live TV, and people like Pelosi and the Nancy boys would look for a peaceful solution.
They are Dhimmi, to their core.
The people that say he has flip flopped are wearing historical blinders.
These guys are trying to make hay where there is none. They are refusing to look at the whole picture.
For example, my own reading shows that Mitt once said, "We should treat all people with dignity, including gays..."
Me personally, I am not gay. I don't approve of that lifestyle. I won't throw stones at them though and refuse service or anything like that.
At the first whiff of gay marriage (many years later) he was fighting it tooth and nail for more than one reason, including keeping traditional marriage and to fight judicial activism.
In fact, Mitt Romney helped form the GOP platform on the gay marriage issue where other states don't have to recognize what activist judges did in Mass.
The ONLY issue where Mitt has conceded a change in position politically was on abortion and even then he framed it this way:
He has always been against abortion, which to me a fellow Mormon, isn't a hard pill to swallow. Then at some point in Mitt's life, a family member died from a botched back room abortion attempt.
It threw him for a loop (I assume as it would most) so he went on record at that time under the position that 'if one must do it, at least be medically safe about it'...
No where did he say he approved of abortion, not then, not now.
I defy anyone to make a case otherwise.
Its about his religion. Thats about what it boils down to.
What he is (almost) suggesting is exactly what many suggested in Germany in 1932.
People from all parts of the political spectrum suggested that it might be a good thing for the Nazis to win. Their thinking was that once the Nazis got real responsibility they would become more responsible.
It didn't quite work out that way.
The fact that the Democratic Party is controlled by socialists is not ~the~ issue here.
The issue should be on winning what is building up to be the 3rd world war.
Hysterically contending that all democrats are nazis [as a political ploy], -- is self defeating rhetoric, designed to make conservatives look 'kooky'
Like it or not, a majority of americans, on both left & right, have 'bought into' various socialistic programs. -- Conservatives have to learn to deal with that fact in a Constitutional fashion, or [politically] lose the Republic.
"Hysterically contending that all democrats are nazi's [as a political ploy], -- is as you say, self defeating rhetoric."
Yeah, that's exactly what I did. Sheesh.
Close enough Mojo, for all practical purposes; -- in fact, I think it's been pretty well established that your main 'political ploy' has always been anti-conservative rhetoric; - just my opinion of course, but you seem to delight in outrageous comparisons.
But to expect intelligent comments from a person who still hasn't figured out the difference between using a possessive (Nazi's) and plural (Nazis) noun is a waste of time.
Big deal -- I removed the apostrophes; -- Is that better? Does it change the thrust of my comments?
I brought up an exact historical parallel.
Bull.. You compared american democrats to nazis.
"-- Their thinking was that once the Nazis got real responsibility they would become more responsible. --"
'-- Their thinking was that once the [Democrats] got real responsibility they would become more responsible. --'
Gaining power does not guarantee that a party will begin to act responsibly.
Of course it doesn't. Our constitutional checks & balances on power do that. -- But reality goes over your head in favor of rhetoric.
Of course it went over your head. But why should I (or anyone for that matter) waste my time on you?
Backwards as usual. I'm using my time to counter your anti-conservative rhetoric. --- Your grammar lessons in reply are the waste.
Soros: America Must 'De-Nazify' Itself
The New York Post slammed billionaire George Soros on Sunday, saying "the Democrats' favorite financial fat-cat clearly isn't feeling comfortable unless he's comparing the United States to Nazi Germany."
In an editorial headlined "Soros' Latest Slur," the Post repeated Soros' remarks to a group of reporters in which he stated that the United States needed to admit it had made a mistake in waging war in Iraq and then drum out the responsible individuals.
"America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany," Soros said. "We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process."
The Post hit back at the hedge-fund billionaire in its editorial, saying: "The message is unmistakable: America, says Soros, is the functional equivalent of Nazi Germany...
"Question is, how long will the Democrats keep taking Soros' money and ignoring the fact that he's gone way off the deep end?"
Soros: America Must 'De-Nazify' Itself
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1787087/posts
If Hitlery Clintoon is POS and there's a 9/11 type attack she will go on TV and speak to the nation. As a gesture of peace to Muslims she will wear a burkha. She'll then invite Muslim Imans into the Oval Office. She'll get down on her hands and knees and demand that the Imans flagellate her while she chants, "I am a dirty Infidel."
Boortz, Savage, Rod Dreher to name just three.
Do you remember Reagan's "Big Tent" at all?
I don't even think Goldberg backs this notion that 'it would be better if a Rat won.' No 'true conservative' believes that. But this chicken little horseshit about how 'true conservatives' are bringing the party and country to its knees ain't flying. It was not a debacle because of 'true conservatives'' failure to defend America's borders. It was not a debacle because 'true conservatives' grew the federal budget, laden with pork, every year. It was not a debacle because 'true conservatives'' first choices for the Supreme Court's openings were opinionless judicial bureaucrats and cronies. It was not a debacle because 'true conservatives' tried to sell American ports into Arab control. The 2006 election was not a debacle because it was 'true conservatives' who fought a political and limited war, tying the hands of our soldiers tighter every time some penny ante 'human rights' violation erupted.
Perhaps it is that 'true conservatives' don't trust compassionate conservative RINOism any more, and 'true conservatives' sensibly won't vote for it. Maybe 'true conservatives' are not buying that they must vote for RINOs to save America any more, because when RINOs get in, any constitutional principles are expendable, just as they would be to Rats. So place the blame where it lies--if the logical result of the GOP nominating a RINO is that the GOP will lose its 'true conservative' base during the general election, the Rats will win, and the country will go down the tubes otherwise, perhaps the GOP should consider nominating 'true conservatives.'
It certainly seems that the GOP is going out of its way to scare them or browbeat them into voting for RINOs instead of choosing that much easier option. I wonder if maybe that means someone besides 'true conservatives' will be at fault if there is another debacle in 2008, or if it will continue to be the 'true conservatives'' fault whenever RINOs fail.
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.