Posted on 05/22/2007 9:29:44 AM PDT by SittinYonder
"The Republican Party is falling apart," said one insider to me recently. "The GOP has become the party of neoliberal corporate globalism, not the party of conservatism," said another. Perhaps election 2008 will be the last hurrah. Other than Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter, the GOP presidential candidates are a joke. The rest are all neoliberal, interventionist globalists.
Look how we've derailed..."
Iraq is a huge mistake, a neocon experiment in utopianism, and we are paying the price. Bush's foreign policy is not conservative. It is Wilsonian nation building. The transformation of the Middle East to liberal democracy is Jacobin, not conservative. And it is because of the neocon war machine in the Middle East that we are hated.
If we really want to end terrorism in the U.S., then we should completely disengage from the Middle East. We should (1) completely withdraw from the Middle East, (2) end foreign aid to all Middle Eastern countries, (3) deport all Muslims from the West, and (4) end all immigration from the third world.
Many fail to realize it, but terrorism is more an immigration issue than Middle Eastern issue. If Seung-Hui Ch? had not been allowed to immigrate hither, the Virginia Tech massacre would not have happened. Three of the terrorists recently nabbed in New Jersey (plotting to attack Ft. Dix) were illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. from Mexico. And almost all previous terrorists, including those on Sept. 11, were either legal or illegal third-world immigrants.
As Jean Raspail said in Camp of the Saints, "the greatest piece of conservative fiction ever written," there is a third-world invasion of the West taking place. We are under attack. And we can either make a stand against the third-world hordes, or we can watch the West crumble.
We must address the problem now. We need deportations, attrition, employer sanctions, and all immigration (legal and illegal) to end from the third world.
But many seem not to care. Many politicians and corporations are supporting this invasion. Why? Either for cheap votes or to drive down American wages.
Failure to address this invasion not only is a dereliction of duty, but it is a form of treason. And many of the presidential candidates are guilty of treason? Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee - and let's not forget Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Traitors, ever last one of them.
And then there's free trade, which is destroying our economy and undermining our sovereignty. But the neocons / neoliberals have their heads in the sand, wanting to take free trade to its logical conclusion in some perverse suicide pact.
The Democratic Party, which in the 19th century was the conservative party while the GOP was the left-wing party, betrayed the U.S. decades ago. And now the GOP is going the same globalist route? neoliberal wars, mass immigration to drive down American wages, and suicidal free trade pacts.
Do not stand for this nonsense!
If Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter does not get the GOP nomination, then vote third party. Refuse to support the neocon / neoliberal globalist machine. If the GOP continues down this path, it is doomed anyway and, hopefully, out of the ashes a true conservative party will arise, perhaps the Constitution Party or the America First Party.
Or perhaps a new party will form, hopefully one modeling itself after the British National Party, Front National, or Vlaams Belang - all conservative parties in Europe, and conservative in the true sense of the word: the conservation of Western man. Not the phony neocon nonsense we have in the U.S.
“If Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter does not get the GOP nomination, then vote third party.”
That’s what I plan on doing. I will no longer “hold my nose” to vote for a liberal with the Republican brand label. Rudy McRomney is the same as any Clinton/Obama.
“If Seung Hui Chi? had not been allowed to immigrate hither, the VT massacre would not have happened”
Well, it’s true isn’t it?
I understand your point, but my problem with the process is that the way big vast majority of voters aren't really paying attention and have little understanding of the consequences of their vote.
Therefore, when the party annoints a candidate, it goes for the name recognition over the principles or values. Look at Bush campaigning for Specter in the last days before the primary when it looked like Toomey might unseat the RINO SOB.
We're not seeking the best candidates, we're fielding candidates solely on a perceived ability to win.
It's a very frustrating thing when you've got elected officials whose desire is to spread foreign law; erase borders; promote a globalist agenda to the detriment of this nation and enact socialist legislation.
Be glad too. Extreme means the furthest from the centre of a given point. But what extreme means to me politically in the Republican Party, is any candidate that is so far to the right, that they can not beat Hillary Clinton in the Presidential election. If Hillary wins the Presidential elecion it will be "extremely" (meaning severely or seriously) devastating for this country.
My opinion is that the worthwhile parts in this opinion piece have to be picked out. Probably because of his passion, the piece comes off as an unfocused rant ... and it does.
But I found some points in it worthwhile and I thought it would make for interesting debate. And, I think, it has.
The question is will the grass roots get behind a candidate? There are very, very many people who believe that Giuliani needs to be the candidate because he can beat Hillary. My suspicion is that too large a percentage of typical Republican voters stay home if Rudy is the nominee. Same for McCain, same for Ron Paul.
The question becomes, what energizes the grassroots to get behind a candidate? I believe it's conservative principles and not "electability."
I think you are wrong, because half the country is not consevative, did you forget?
The country doesn't divide in half by political philosophy. A strong grassroots movement with motivated voters campaigning can sway voters. But if you take a candidate like Giuliani who loses the Gun voters and loses the Abortion voters - both of whom are strong activists - the motivation of the grassroots campaign is weakened.
McCain is the same. Romney may or may not be able to move activist voters.
Conservative principles appeal to more people than not. When we campaign on true conservative principles, we win elections. Ask Ronald Reagan. Ask Newt Gingrich.
We can mop the floor with any military on Earth. But destroying a regime just creates opportunities for terrorists to fill the power vacuum, like it did Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia, the Sudan, and in Gaza and the West Bank.
The approach the President took was to create a dying place for the jihadis (over 20,000 of ‘em so far in Iraq alone), and, at the same time, try to build a democratic secular Arab nation in the ME, proving that such could, in fact, exist and endure. This, in turn, puts pressure on other ME nations to change.
Dunno if its going to work, but it seemed better to President Bush than repeated wars, possibly followed by terrorist retaliations.
Then how the heck did Bill Clinton get elected TWICE to the Presidency? I haven’t forgot that our country almost went down the tubes while he was in office and I am not prepared for that again.
No, it is an oxymoron. Islam and democracy are incompatible. We had one job after 9/11: the destruction of Islamist states which sponsor terror. Afghanistan. Iran. Iraq. Syria. Pakistan. Palestinian Authority. We quickly got derailed by idiots in Washington, consumed with the "Arab street", perverted by business interests, and deluded by misplaced idealism. Clearly these morons have no understanding of Islam or the Koran.
Well, it’s true isn’t it?
I was waiting for what I expected would be the silliest response to my comment. Took much longer than I thought.
If you agree with the fundamental points of the author then you stand shoulder to shoulder with some of the most dark-hearted elements of the American far-right, which is not at all conservative. It is, in fact, an extremist position with more commonalities with the far-far-left than with any mainstream conservative viewpoint. I mean, come on, the America First Party? A party which takes its name from a pro-nazi movement prior to WWII? A party/movement defined by its rabid antisemitism?
So no, you’ll get no apology from me.
You called me an anti-semite with absolutely no justification at all. You won't find a word in my entire posting history to support your pathetic accusations against me. Several times on this thread alone I've said I don't endorse the writer but thought some of his points were worthy of discussion.
People who believe that the "new conservatives" are taking us down a wrong-headed path of globalism are not anti-semites or anti-zionists. You find no one who supports Israel more than I do. But I don't believe we should be citizens of the world or citizens of North America, and that's where the neocon globalist agenda is headed.
You're flat wrong about what you've said. You're buying into a liberal view of what conservatives believe, projecting on me the perception of conservatives the leftist media wants people to have of conservatives.
But judging from your own words about yourself, it doesn't surprise me that you misunderstand conservative principles and utilize leftist defamation tactics to attack conservatives:
Not too long ago, I was the anti-Freeper: an atheistic, quasi- pseudo-marxist true believer, more radical than liberal, more intellectual than wise.
Find the evidence to support your baseless, false and libelous accusations against me, or apologize.
The evidence is in the article, sport. By posting it without noting any disagreement with its contents, such as the usual FReeper ‘Barf Alert’, you are endorsing its viewpoint. Its viewpoint is extremist, although when hanging around with your like-minded pals, I’m sure it all seems normal enough to you. How can you claim to support Israel while simultaneously supporting ideas and political parties whose primary reason for existence is hatred of the Jewish people? Are you plagued by some kind of idealogical schizophrenia?
Libelous? Go for it. It isn’t difficult to find out my real name and address from information taken from this site, so get moving. I stand by everything I wrote.
No apology, either. Go to Heck, where your evil overlords will force you to watch endless Florida vacation slide-shows while Muzak plays eternally in the background.
Re your post#192
No. Your response to my perfectly logical comment to the effect that if Chui had not been on the VT Campus that day but instead, he had still been S. Korea, the shooting never would have happened is the silly statement.
I didn't write the article.
By posting it without noting any disagreement with its contents, such as the usual FReeper ‘Barf Alert’, you are endorsing its viewpoint.
That's absolutely stupid. Dozens of articles are posted on here everyday without "Barf Alerts" where the people posting the article don't endorse the viewpoint. Utter gibberish.
Its viewpoint is extremist, although when hanging around with your like-minded pals, I’m sure it all seems normal enough to you
I've said several times on this thread that I don't endorse the writer or all of the views. I've said I thought it was worth discussing ... and the number of posts in this thread and the thoughtful discussion included in them bears out my initial opinion.
Again, my views are very much in line with the conservative agenda, and you've yet to identify anything I've written on this forum that suggests extremism.
How can you claim to support Israel while simultaneously supporting ideas and political parties whose primary reason for existence is hatred of the Jewish people?
What ideas and political parties do I support whose primary reason for existence is hatred of the Jewish people? That's the most absurd crap I've ever read. Again, prove it or apologize!
Are you plagued by some kind of idealogical schizophrenia?
Are you plagued by some kind of comprehension dyslexia. Nothing in my posting history supports the accusations you continue to make against me. I've pointed out your error, yet you doggedly persist without proof.
There is a line when you go to post that says: "Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts."
The bit asking that we refrain from personal attacks - which you've ignored - prevents me from telling you what I think of you, but suffice it to say that I suspect your conservative credentials are weaker than Rudy Giuliani's based on your view of extremism, and your comparissons of conservatives to Nazis.
I stand by everything I wrote.
You shouldn't. It only proves you to be a fool.
Oh, wait. I get it. You’re one of those Ron Paul supporters out there in cyberspace, frantically trying to create the impression of a groundswell of popular support for a Lyndon LaRouche-like political nonentity.
It’s like dealing with a Scientologist, complete with the libel charge. I should’ve known.
If the GOP has become the party of neoliberal corporate globalism, not the party of conservatism, I am no longer at heart a Republican. But I can fly under it’s colors to vote for the man, not the party, if needs be. At least until a truly conservative party comes into view.
If Tancredo or Hunter get the GOP nomination I’ll be delighted to support and vote for them. If Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination I’ll be rich from selling ice skates in hell, and I’ll be voting for a third party candidate.
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.