 |
Posted on 06/16/2002 5:32:24 AM PDT by magnum opus dejure
Someone said the same to me at one time, but now I know better.
Bye.
It works like this. You posted, in your own words, what you really feel about things. You believe that women are inferior to you and you believe blacks are inferior to you and you feel that hispanics are inferior to you.
You bring up the posts and prove that you are telling the truth when I say you are a liar right here and now. This is about me busting your fraud in 1997, and you covering it up as best as you can. I'm not a racist, and you know it.
It's your move again. Bubba...
1359 posted on 6/18/02 9:18 AM Pacific by oneifbyland and then some
They go up now for about 5 minutes. They come down after that because we don't want them here. But here are most of the examples I gave in post 59.
Wow, nothing like an in-your-face post telling us exactly what your purpose is.
Yeah, and he is willing to martyr estimated income tax payers for no good reason to obtain his objective. Evil means for a good end.
The other "conceivable way" is to mobilize the non-voters who are mostly Republican wannabees. They have been turned off by the one-party system. This is the group Republicans should target and the "Nation First" people believe that reclaiming our conservative principles can also claim some of these voters out of the "non-voter" ranks.I think this would be a mistake. I don't believe the evidence supports that those who have been turned off by what you call the one-party system are mostly Republican wannabees.
Between Buchanan and Nader, who were the two main candidates espousing that view, the Green Party candidate garnered siginficantly more support. The candidacy of John McCain was driven by those who aren't in love with either the Republican or Democrat parties. He ran distinctively to the left of George W. Bush. When thousands gather to protest expressing a view against both Republicans and Democrats, they don't tend to be those whose views would jibe with what one would expect from Republican-wannabees. They tend to be anarchist or communist or anti-capitalist.
The disgruntled voter who is just by nature a should-be-conservative appears to me to be a myth. The answer is more difficult. We have to sell our message to those who don't vote, or even better, to those who currently vote Democrat.
How to do that is where we run into trouble. However, it is a more rational approach than giving the power over to the Democrats while we tear one party down to hopefully raise another up.
One other thing, to paraphrase the great Dr. Sowell, in most walks of life the cream rises to the top. In government, mediocrity rises to the top. I tend to believe that with Bush, what you have seen is what you get. He doesn't have a job where you save the best to last. My fears are that we have already seen his best, and it is sorely disappointing.
There are many fine Americans out there who might make wonderful presidents. Phil Gramm and Newt are two politicos that come immediately to mind. Dr. Sowell certainly has the wisdom to be our white knight and there are many others.
Maybe even better would be Rush who doesn't have all of their political baggage. People and fans including me, have been trying to recruit Rush for the job without success for many years. I believe that Rush could use Excellence in Golf to fund his own campaign out of his pocket. He would not be obligated to anyone through campaign financing including the Republican Party. EIG could conceivably provide funding for selected Congressional races as well. Talk about political coups!
AFers never learn (nor ever win).
Post 116 for example was the one where wasfree railed about blacks and women. You can claim it wasn't and dare me to put it back. However, anyone who clicks on that link can see the replies people made to the pulled comment, days ago. The replies make clear what the post was.
Post 29 was the one where you turned on Mexicans. Again, the reply to it by VMI70 bears that out.
No one replied to your lightening strike story though. I think they felt bad for you.
I am an incurable optimist. And as much as they infuriate me much of the time, I still have great faith in the American people. I suspect that our nation has gone past the point of no return. But I also believe that an even better nation or nations will emerge from the ashes. Reagan's vision of the "Shining City on the Hill" was never really a vision of the United States per se. It was a vision of freedom. He knew and believed that the United States as the symbol of freedom was the last best hope for mankind. It still is and will be, but it may not be the United States as we know it today. Rather I suspect it will be a group of smaller independent republics with Constitutions modeled after the one we currently ignore. I think these republics will be competitive to offer ever greater amounts of freedom at progressively falling economic costs by government. The governments of these republics will be limited and carefully monitored to ensure that they do not repeat the mistakes made in our existing country.
That leaves conservatives taking control of an existing party. Clearly the Republican party is the logical choice. But taking control from the powers that be is impossible unless the party were to suffer a massive defeat at the polls in an election. This fall presents a golden opportunity.But then there is your profile:
The Democratic Party is hopelessly corrupt because it is based on a corrupt principle. No man has the right to take the property of another man without his permission even to give it to some else who needs it. No man can be empowered by government to do what he cannot do for himself. Democrats maybe our ally in the war on terrorism, but the Democrats remain the enemy of freedom just as the terrorists and the Communist party, the Democrats’ first cousins, are the enemies of freedom. America will never be safe as long as a single Democrat holds elected public office.Bipolar?
I would say more likely Third Postion or some spinoff.
I want to emphasize a point that I believe is of paramount importance. I do not think there is time for incrementalism to be of any value in changing the course of our country. I believe we are headed for the edge of a cliff that surrounds us on three sides. Our momentum is too great to keep us from going over the financial precipice of the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security. I think our possible salvation requires a relatively abrupt 180-degree course correction for the whole country. I think we have less than a decade to bring about this major change. There is only a limited number of feasible or practical means by which this could be possible. And I think FreeRepublic offers the forum for whatever initiation and catalyst that will be required.
And voting Democrat slows down this moment just how exactly? And what better way to spread the leftist agenda than to use the emotional pleas of the left in the opposite direction. Medicare and Social Security.
Third Position minus the racism? Or did I simply miss that part?
why would you want to change the Constitution?
|
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.