Great point. I stand by the former and can't stand the latter.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
Posted on 03/23/2009 10:30:09 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, greater economic opportunity, and respect for this nation and its heritage.
BY JERRY A. KANE
At what point does complacency end and panic set in for the members and leaders of the Republican Party? When will they notice the empty hour glass and recognize wickedness for what it is? The hordes of satiated simpletons shouting in rhythmic cadence, “Oh we love, the O-One … Oh we love, the O-One” is not the Winkie chant of guards entering a castle in a scene from a classic fantasy film. The ill winds of the 2006 and 2008 elections that uprooted the GOP House and Senate leadership and sent Republicans spiraling downward were not flash-in-the-pan Kansas dust devils but full-blown Category-5 whirlwinds.
The party of Ronald Reagan has been victimized by disorganized thinking, held spellbound, and led astray by the siren call for moderation from its left wing, which by nature votes for progressive governance. Before Republicans begin their assault on the castle to douse the progressive Democrats’ power grab, the party’s conservatives and libertarians, i.e., Conserva-tarians, must come out from under the spell and cast out the treacherous progressive element from the positions of power in their own ranks.
Caught up in the tidal wave of the ’94 election, Republican exuberance soon gave way to a heightened sense of self-importance; instead of governing on principles and fulfilling their Contract with America, Republicans lost their way and spent the next 12 years trying to convince the electorate that their compromises were smart, courageous, and compassionate. Now, it’s up to Conserva-tarians to rise to the occasion, accept the challenge facing them, and move the party in the direction of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, greater economic opportunity, and respect for this nation and its heritage.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Great point. I stand by the former and can't stand the latter.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
You mean like “economic conservative”/social liberal Arnold Schwarzenegger in California? We see now how well that turned out.
I know it’s fashionable to say one is economically conservative but socially and morally liberal. However, ultimately the social and moral liberalism always leads to economic liberalism/statism/socialism.
Good discussion on this topic here-
“Why Moral Conservatism Is Indispensable to Liberty.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2208536/posts
Interstate Commerce Clause and 14th Amendment among other places.
Many small-l libertarian are socially conservative but check their activism at the door in oredr to reduce the size and scope of the state from meddling in the business of others. I've got no problems with dope smokers and same sex couple but I know a whole lot of So-Cons that abhor the behaviors so much, they're willing to want to legislate. How these people are pro-liberty is beyond me.
Actually, you were responding to wagglebee’s points, but I agree with you.
Standing ovation!!!!!!!
You just said it all!
The base listened to the din of Katrina, wiretaps, torture, Plame, inside job!, and were cowed. The most vocal put on fronts of righteous indignation and a lot of people stayed home.
As a result we have the O-man, who has spent more in the past 60 days than all 8 years of Bush's extra spending. The protections of the unborn are being undone as we speak. Gun rights are in jeopardy. The military is on the verge of being gutted. Not to mention the fact that the economy is being taxed and regulated to death, The dollar is becoming a joke. Diplomatically, we're making fools of ourselves. And our children are headed for a life of forced service.
Great plan - throwing the election to an avowed commie in the hopes of reforming and winning the future great battle. I hope it works.
I’ve attempted to argue this point with folks on this board for a long time.
I’ve finally come to the conclusion, advanced succintly on the blog “Classical Values”, that many conservatives have about as much respect for the Constitution as the vast majority of liberals, i.e., none. In the service of some noble goal, both conservatives and liberals will run rough-shod over the Constitution (witness the Schiavo case; likewise, witness the War on Drugs, which still enjoys considerable support among social conservatives).
Generally, liberals tend to favor a form of “economic socialism”: the use of the State to enforce economic justice through regulation, taxation, and/or confiscation. Conservatives tend to favor a form of “moral socialism”: the use of the State to enforce moral codes, such as the banning of abortion, the banning of gay marriage, extensive regulations on pornography, etc.
For government to “leave us alone” will require the People of this country to learn, once and for all, that government is the answer to nothing: “that government is best which governs least.”
Precisely! I don’t want to hear any of these turncoats’ whining when the man they helped elect turns his brown shirts loose against them.
The main fault of the conservative movement is that it is just as likely to seek government solutions to the problems it perceives in society as the left is. Consequently, there is currently no major party that believes in limited and restrained government across the board. Too bad.
By your definition, they wouldn't be. But society as a whole has to balance liberty with what is good for the society. If we didn't, there would be no laws against anything, and we'd have anarchy.
So. . .the difference really seems to be what liberties one is willing to give up for the good of society.
Actually, we all have limits on 'live and let live.' The only difference is to what level one is willing to restrict how others 'live' for the good of society. If there were absolutely no limits on the 'live and let live' philosophy, we'd have anarchy.
I have, and will continue to do so at each election.
Excellent post!
"They" being Libertarians? That is fine, but unfortunately the Libertarians at the state level haven't been socially conservative either.
Some including Glenn Beck hold social conservative values, but most don't, they would legalize drugs, abortion, and I doubt they would get all that upset with pedophilia, as long as it was with consent.
The problem is their values tend to lead to devolution of society, reference Robert Bork's book, "Slouching to Gomorra."
The fact is Man does not become socially good on his own, as the Apostle Paul noted, Man will sink to the lowest level, left to his desires.
Silly me, I don't recall this even coming up for discussion during the campaign. I do remember McCain saying we have nothing to fear from this man Obama. That and various other stupid comments by McCain, went a long way towards defeat.
If not for Palin on the ticket, McCain would have racked up the worst defeat since Carter.
B$.
"Not a dimes worth of difference" That could be a campaign issue, oh never mind.....
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.