Posted on 05/17/2008 2:03:48 AM PDT by MartinaMisc
That’s it, ignore the subject. You just blathered on and didn’t even address what I posted. What do you think of Newt supporting the ‘fairness doctrine’....?
Newt is NOT a conservative. Maybe you aren’t either. You’ve been shown the facts for years about Newt. Don’t demand I get them all for you again, because you’ll just ignore the subject, as usual.
Conservative principles are good and moral. Non-conservative principles are neither moral or good for the country or individual, therefore H.W. Bush was **not** moral or good.
I don’t know your position on illegal immigration, but you might be interested to know the reason workplace enforcement stopped in 1998 was because of Newt and his Georgia delegation. Newt also joined with other open border people like Linda Chavez, grover norquist, etc and wrote a letter in the WSJ PRAISING Bush’s amnesty. YOU look it up. Maybe if you put a little work into who you think is the GOP savior you’ll remember some facts next time.
You need some facts before you accuse people of ‘hate’. It’s easy to like a Newt when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Small government with low taxes is indeed conservatism, or at least part of it. The question is, how do we get a hedonistic society to refrain from demanding more and more social programs? That requires family values, people learning to delay gratification, and so on. A society that is abortion-tolerant and gay-friendly ain't gonna be fiscally responsible. You can't create an atmosphere where women churn out millions of illegitimate kids, and where people spread STDs like crazy, and then expect those people to be "fiscal conservatives". They won't be. They'll vote for the socialist who promises them the moon, at someone else's expense.
Nope. It’s because we won’t pay for it, because it’s an inferior product and service as most Americans well-know.
You're in for a shock because we **ARE** going to have socialized medicine in America. We rallied to stop it in 1994 because social conservatives weren't "toxic" back then. We are now, so I'm betting on socialized medicine passing in 2013. After four years of "moderate" McCain, purging the GOP of "toxic" social conservatives, the Dems will win a historic landlide in 2012, with a leftist president and huge socialist majorities in both houses. Socialized medicine will sail through.
Actually he did it to poke a stick in the eye of the reprehensible Evangelical voters.
So let me get this straight. Goldwater believed in states' rights and opposed big government, but to poke the social conservatives in the eye, he sponsored a big government bill which undermined states' rights. I'm sure that to someone who thinks social conservatives are "reprehensible", that makes all the sense in the world. Hey, maybe McCain can really sock it to us and sign socialized medicine into law next year, then we won't have to wait until 2013 to get ObamaCare. That'll really show us social cons a thing or two, won't it?
Ron Paul point - Agreed
the man is a certified whacko - and his isolationism strikes me as dangerously naive, BUT, he has integrity, honesty and consistency. People like that, especially when compared to the hypocritical, pandering, lying bunch of crooks people expect to see as politicians;
Anti-intellectual point - Agreed
We conservatives need smarts right now. Newt has smarts - he’s just not the right vehicle for the message - he’s tainted himself with all his personal shenannigans too much to be a credible conservative voice - what can he possibly tell people about Values ? But, we definitely need smarts;
Personal behaviour point - Agreed
No business of government how I live my life if I’m harming no-one else. FR stands for liberty above all else - without it, society’s nothing. So, Mr sanctimonious Preacher-man, back up and let me live my life. Our insistence on telling others how to live their lives is one reason why David Vitter, Mark Foley, Larry Craig and Ted Haggard are much more damaging for Republicans than similar scandals for the Democrats - Republican rhetoric leads people to expect better behavious from Republicans.
I agree - but don’t underestimate the power of Coulter especially to appeal to the more vitriolic, unyeilding wing of the socon community. She’s right on a lot of things, but this hard-line, “my way or the highway” mentality she’s fostering is immensely damaging to Republicanism right now, and she, and many Freepers don’t see this.
Limbaugh is undoubtedly the most influential, and smartest of the group.
Hannity - the less said, the better - if you wanna see how smart this guy is, watch him debate Christopher Hitchens on utube - it’s laughable.
I’m just saying I don’t think Newt’s the man - seems the American people agree with me. In the last poll I could find on the topic (Rasmussen Oct 07), Gingrich had the highest negative rating of all the prospective Republican presidential candidates.
You undertook a leap of logic to infer that as I don’t think Newt’s the right man, I therefore think McCain’s the right man. All I’ll say on that topic is that McCain’s a better choice than Huckabee.
On the relative ethical strength of McCain and Newt, I honestly don’t know - McCain’s a serial marrier too after all - but I do know that he wasn’t the hypocrite leading the charge against Clinton whilst simultaneously undertaking infidelity himself.
Like I said, Newt’s a smart man, with some tremendous ideas allied to a political brain to rival the best of them. In the eye’s of the American people however, he’s damaged goods, and the poll data back me up on that.
Gotta let Newt go, man. He belongs to the last century, not this - he had his chance and blew it.
Tell me more of this country, this "Slovakia".
“Tell me more of this country, this “Slovakia”.”
Pretty nice here.. Beautiful and sophisticated women, lots of nature, mountains,sports.. I just got back from a ride on a new bike..Bike trails everywhere.
And best of all, NO PC CRAP ;)
Let’s not divert this thread too far, but as I actually live in Britain, picking a few rhetorical newspaper articles out about British culture and projecting your fears about being washed away does not make your projection accurate.
There is a serious debate going on right now about the correct limits to multiculturalism. That’s right in a democracy. The vast proportion of the UK is white people, living in modest houses, working office jobs, bringing up baby and washing the car on Sunday morning. Muslims can pray where and when they please as far as I’m concerned - as long as they contribute constructively to British culture, don’t diss my country, and leave me alone.
Powell wasn’t purged - he was sacked from the cabinet after his inflammatory speech on race relations in 1968. He remained a member of parliament for another 20 years. Is he the only socially conservative “purgee” you can think of ? Any more ? - you make it sound like Stalin was in charge.
Britain is about to be washed away - who or what by ? Is this another of your famous “slippery slope fallacies” ?
Glad you straightened out, who know Newt was a liberal? (rolling eyes)
The economy is not as bad as the leftist media says it is. They want it to go south so bad they can hardly see straight, and they’ve been trying to talk it down since 2002 or 2003 when it began to rebound.
Global warming is a scam.
Our health care system is functional to the extent that we allow it to be controlled by the free market, and dysfunctional to the extent that we allow government regulation and bureaucratic oversight.
Liberalism is the cause of every problem we have. Rush is one of our best weapons against their slimy advances.
The author, D.R. Tucker, appears to have a poor understanding of what conservatism is. First and foremost, conservatism is not defined by what political leaders do.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2017315/posts?page=8
Nigel Hastilow, to name one of the more recent examples.
Incidentally, "purge" is used quite generically here in the states. It doesn't have to mean something of Stalinesque proportions, complete with gulags.
you make it sound like Stalin was in charge. Britain is about to be washed away - who or what by ?
The EU.
Is this another of your famous “slippery slope fallacies” ?
What are you, a follower of that overgrown schoolgirl I debated yesterday? Or is this just another of your famous, "nothing to see here folks, all is well" posts?
I'll assume the latter, since I can't imagine that even that gal would have said Britain never had any social conservatives to begin with. She'd rather have bragged about marginalizing them so that liberalism could flower.
The amazing thing is, it’s a simple fact of life that liberals abort liberals. They are preventing their own from breeding. Yet the Evans want to protect them at all costs, even the cost of basic freedom and constitutional federalism.
If I could, I would make abortion disappear. But I’m getting really tired of us sacrificing EVERYTHING just to protect liberal breeding. It’s not making sense to me anymore.
We’ve had (and have) plenty of social conservatives. I said we never had any “in positions of power”. Re-read my post please.
So, instead of “purge” (one definition being “to put to death or otherwise eliminate (undesirable or unwanted members) from a political organization, government, nation, etc.”, you could just as easily (and more accurately) said “fired” ?
I’ve read up on Hastilow, and give you that one - PC gone mad - that’s the Tories trying to cosy up to moderates. Actually, I don’t necessarily think they need to do that to win - Gordon Brown is proving a disaster all on his own. Doesn’t look like Hastilow is a socon however - more like an anti-Immigrant anti-EU man - so I may have to not give you that one after all.
We’re being washed away by the EU - did you read that on Hastilow’s blog ? There was a real danger of this happening in the 90’s under Delors, but like I said earlier, the EU has totally lost it’s way - I voted for the Referendum Party in 1997, so incensed was I with the encroaching powers of the EU - so I know it when I see it, and today, I don’t see it - they’re too busy navel gazing over the constitution, but I suspect you’re not following it too closely from your glib assertion.
On the position of conservatism in Britain, my position is absolutely NOT “nothing to see here folks”. Eternal vigilance, my FRiend. We have nanny staters of the worst kind here - I pay over 50% of my salary in tax, I’m not allowed to have a hand-gun, the government wants to compel me to own a biometric ID card, they want my DNA, I can’t hunt foxes and I’m living in the midst of a surveillance society. Don’t worry - we’ve plenty to do here to to regain lost freedoms - it’s just of the nanny state variety rather than the theocratic “you’re going to hell if you don’t think like this” variety.
Like Mill, I find the former marginally less objectionable, on balance.
I thought she was a gamer yesterday, and made some good points well even though significantly outnumbered. I didn’t peg her as a liberal, but that’s either me being naive, or you seeing ghosts everywhere - like kangaroo marriage just around the corner and the EU washing away the UK some time soon. You must be real fun at parties !!
You’re a good fellow and a gentleman! You get the last word, FRiend!
And vice-versa -- social conservatism will never be promoted or preserved by big government, as giant bureaucracies are inherently amoral.
I am still chuckling. When we took the senate and had it all, predictions were being made about the end of the democrat party. It appears to me they are still around.
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.