Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is The Conservative Movement DEAD?
3/2102 | AntiDemoCommie

Posted on 03/23/2002 12:46:30 PM PST by antidemocommie

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last
To: Thane_Banquo
There was an amensty in Reagan's days, however, Congress was fully under the control of commie democrats. Reagan did wrong by signing the bill, however. And, if Bush signs on to anything that helps illegal aliens, he will be equally wrong.

Steve Sailer, member of the Hudson Institute, says:

"Finally, Bush will simply alienate many Hispanics who vote Republican now because they don't like illegal immigration. In a Gallup poll in June, only one-third of Hispanics favored increased immigration. A full one-quarter wanted to cut immigration."

41 posted on 03/23/2002 1:39:59 PM PST by antidemocommie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
The fact that jurisdog refuses to identify his previous handle belies his claim that he simply forgot how to login and apparently was too dense to use email to find out. More than likely he is a returning banned poster who forgot not to mention his previous posting history.
42 posted on 03/23/2002 1:42:42 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Since Ronald Reagan, not nearly enough things have gone Right for Conservatives. Government expanded during the Reagan administration. Abortion didn't end during the Reagan administration. Illegal immigration didn't end during the Reagan administration. Public schools didn't improve during the Reagan administration. Are you willing to say Conservatism died in 1980? 8 posted on 3/23/02 1:56 PM Pacific by #3Fan

HEHE! I hate to, but I have to do this: No, I am willing to admit that the Soviet Union died shortly after Reagan became president.

43 posted on 03/23/2002 1:42:45 PM PST by antidemocommie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
So in your opinion, things really started getting bad during the Reagan Administration when government expanded, abortion didn't end, schools didn't improve, illegal immigration didn't end

It started before Reagan.

Regards

J.R.

44 posted on 03/23/2002 1:46:17 PM PST by NMC EXP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: antidemocommie
We are traped today in a divisive politics of rich vs. poor that is aimed to favor the poor. What it should have been is politics bent on continuing the Founding Fathers' design to deal with jurisdiction and districting problems of this new nation. Today the fight is between left and right, in the past it was between pro-Federal and pro-Local authority.

We do not think in terms of jurisdiction anymore, but in terms of favoring a social class or another, and this is precisely what Bush is doing: districting social classes and trying to make them content, rich and poor, bipartisan.

Meanwhile, the neglect on issues of jurisdiction means that no social class in the US is immune from jurisdiction encroachments and violations.

I am not surprised Blair seem to like Bush. Both seem to believe that humanism can be contributed by both rich and poor and a diversity of classes in this third way concept of inter-dependence.

This is dangerous because it still leaves the issue of jurisdictional respect and rights respects vulnerable to social engineerings of all classes. We are experiencing a soft communism that is going to deteriorate progressively into a society that does not see evil through jurisdiction violations (as examplified by the Bible when Adam and Eve thought to know more about each other and God's powers through socialy engineered good and evil), rather we will tend to see evil as bad social technical performance aka PC.

It is terrible. I'd rather have a king like BUsh in power than a drug addicted queer like Clinton. But I can't help foresee that one day some people will assert their inalienable jurisdictions and much sufferance will come from that. If not from Civil Wars and world wars, surely through continuous civil rights strife and paralysis of the economy and deep depressions.

45 posted on 03/23/2002 1:46:46 PM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NMC EXP
You nailed that! BTW, how you been?
46 posted on 03/23/2002 1:56:51 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lavaroise
This is dangerous because it still leaves the issue of jurisdictional respect and rights respects vulnerable to social engineerings of all classes. We are experiencing a soft communism that is going to deteriorate progressively into a society that does not see evil through jurisdiction violations (as examplified by the Bible when Adam and Eve thought to know more about each other and God's powers through socialy engineered good and evil), rather we will tend to see evil as bad social technical performance aka PC.

Thats a good point. The solution will be the removal of offensive rights i.e. free speech, etc., and the enactment of global wealth redistribution. Christ must be standing in the door.

47 posted on 03/23/2002 1:57:09 PM PST by antidemocommie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: jurisdog
Republicans Should Say: No, we don't. Gun ownership is protected under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Instead, we should reverse 90% of the gun laws on the books.

Republicans Should Say: No, we don't. This social spending is all a result of dishonest perversion of the Constitution, and the Federal Government should not be redistributing the wealth of its citizens under the guise of "compassion" or "social responsibility". Instead, we should eliminate Welfare, Medicare, Social Security and every single other Federal entitlement and return the money to the people.

I think you are largely correct. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

If Republicans stayed true to conservatism, do you think they would get anything accomplished? President Bush, for example, is not a dictator, and ultimately he must rely on Congress to write our laws. And Congressional Republicans will always have any eye on re-election.

Being generous, I'd say that maybe 30% of the public would be ready for significant spending cuts and a return to Constitutional government. That's just not enough popular support to keep the Democrats and socialists from dominating the next election, destroying any reforms conservatives make, and even furthering the cause of socialism in this country.

48 posted on 03/23/2002 1:58:58 PM PST by timm22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
It's a little strange he/she won't reveal the original handle.
49 posted on 03/23/2002 2:01:18 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
Other than my frustration with the gop sycophants, I am fine as frog hair. I trust you and yours are well.

Are you actually Claire Wolfe, and if so, where is Hardyville? I'm ready to move.

Take care,

J.R.

50 posted on 03/23/2002 2:03:24 PM PST by NMC EXP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: antidemocommie
HEHE! I hate to, but I have to do this: No, I am willing to admit that the Soviet Union died shortly after Reagan became president.

So it's OK to commit political sins as long as there is a foreign enemy? We have a foreign enemy now.

I think Reagan was our greatest president of the twentieth century, but you're condemning Bush43 for the same sins of Reagan without condemning Reagan. You're not being consistant.

51 posted on 03/23/2002 2:04:36 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NMC EXP
It started before Reagan.

So you consider Reagan as part of the problem just as you consider Bush43 as part of the problem?

52 posted on 03/23/2002 2:06:22 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
So you consider Reagan as part of the problem just as you consider Bush43 as part of the problem?

To Reagan's credit he did not do a lot of damage. However, beyond his tax cut he did nothing to repair the rot and damage in place when he was elected.

Regards

J.R.

53 posted on 03/23/2002 2:11:26 PM PST by NMC EXP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: antidemocommie
There was an amensty in Reagan's days, however, Congress was fully under the control of commie democrats. Reagan did wrong by signing the bill, however. And, if Bush signs on to anything that helps illegal aliens, he will be equally wrong.

That was a complete lie. Reagan proposed the amnesty and pushed it through congress.

54 posted on 03/23/2002 2:13:28 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Are you willing to say Conservatism died in 1980?

Conservatism had the biggest nail driven in its coffin with the passage of the personal income tax. An additional nail was hammered home with the election of FDR. From there on it was a greased downhill slide!!! It is now a certainty that the USA will become a socialist republic. It is only a question of when.

55 posted on 03/23/2002 2:16:03 PM PST by Don Corleone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: antidemocommie
I would say the Neo-Cons and the Globalists have taken over the Republican Party. Paleo-Cons seem to be an endangered species, if not extinct in the political arena.

Tuor

56 posted on 03/23/2002 2:17:31 PM PST by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
The fact that jurisdog refuses to identify his previous handle belies his claim that he simply forgot how to login and apparently was too dense to use email to find out. More than likely he is a returning banned poster who forgot not to mention his previous posting history.

Hey genius, try reading post #25 above. Not only did I identify my previous posting handle, but I also linked you to an article posted by me that was picked up by an outside source. Jesus god above, pull your head out.
57 posted on 03/23/2002 2:19:11 PM PST by jurisdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: antidemocommie
This is kind of an interesting article from the El Paso Times Wednesday (from what I hear locally, is the Hispanic people who have been here for generations are refusing to call themselves "Mexican" because they don't like the Mexicans too much and everyone thinks of Mexicans as illegals.

Demographers debate source of 'Hispanic' census results
Mark Babineck
Associated Press
Another round of Census 2000 figures released today does nothing to quell a debate among Texas demographers over the remarkable jump in the number of Hispanics not of Mexican ancestry.

The latest figures, further ethnic and racial breakdowns of previous short-form results, offer little new information about Texas. They are more relevant in states with large American Indian populations, which are enumerated in better detail.

In Texas, the numbers are another reminder that nearly two years after the head count began, demographers still aren't completely sure of the ancestry of about 1.5 million "other Hispanics," or 7 percent of the state's 20.9 million residents.

The short form gave Hispanic respondents only three specific options for ancestry: Mexican, Puerto Rican or Cuban. Everything else fell under "other," where people were asked to fill in a blank. However, many are thought to have checked "other" without being specific.

Demographer Steve Murdock, head of the State Data Center at Texas A&M University, thinks the population swell came from an influx of Central Americans during the 1990s.

"I don't think they're of Mexican origin," he said of the "other" category, which increased by 287 percent from about 388,000 in 1990. "I think there's a substantial diversification taking place within the Hispanic community."

Karl Eschbach, a sociology professor at the University of Houston, counters that his number-crunching indicates that a vast majority of the "other" Hispanics are probably Mexican-Americans who, for whatever reason, simply did not check the appropriate box.

58 posted on 03/23/2002 2:20:42 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
It's a little strange he/she won't reveal the original handle.

Try reading post #25 above.
59 posted on 03/23/2002 2:20:43 PM PST by jurisdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: NMC EXP
To Reagan's credit he did not do a lot of damage. However, beyond his tax cut he did nothing to repair the rot and damage in place when he was elected.

That's what I wanted to know. Those that think they are perfect are the enemy of the good.

60 posted on 03/23/2002 2:25:18 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson