FLAME WARS, BANISHMENTS, ANTI-FREEPERS. YOUR CALLS, YOUR OPINIONS THIS WEEK ON RADIO FREE REPUBLIC

I agree with much of the sentiments of your post.

However, the notion of Queen Hillary as President must be revisited. While that prospect genuinely instills horror in me, I can think of no other event that would more crystallize the conservative movement and allow an honest battle between the statists and the defenders of freedom. It would be like the revulsion to Bill Clinton as Pres to the Tenth Power. An event of that magnitude would cause a seimsic jolt in the consciousness of the American Public and force the average meathead who has never even thought or cared about his or her freedom to make a decision.

As she droolingly implements her mad Marxist designs, you would likely see an open revolt among the military, the churchgoing and underground economies all comng together in a common cause and reawakening. That leads to what the Chinese call crisis, namely "opportunity" to engage the opposition forces out in the open, where we always have the advantage. The Empress would be not only naked to all, but her hideousness would force a reaction.

Consider the alternative, as you say...lets rally and do one more for the Gipper....question is one what? We (as in the GOP) finally won both the Congress and the White House and after some rattling of the chains, saw them promptly drop conservatism as it didn't fit their agendas to run the Big Machine. We simply have no Reagan, no man or men on the White Horse. We must be peasants with pitchforks, as one tragic victim of the GOP-opoly once remarked, and rout out the bastards, with the intelligence, drive and tenacity of our forefathers.

I am not looking for an air flame war, I am looking for common ground between all.

The term "conservative" embraces so many views and is so diverse that it is almost a surreal. For some, being a member of the Republican party constitutes conservatism. To me that is a contradiction in terms. It is not the nature of conservatives to function in lockstep. Whereas, people with strong political party affiliations follow the party line.

I consider myself to be conservative with strong libertarian leanings. When I look at or analyze policy or law it is from that perspective. I have no partisan affiliation. If I express dissatisfaction with the current administration I am subject to attack. It no longer is an exchange of ideas or being on the same page. So, I guess what I am trying to say is that it really isn't about "eating your own."

Im not sure what nopardons reason for being on FR are...at first I took the name to be a reflection of political philosophy. But now I see that she actually has a belief that no authority should ever be held up to any ridicule, which makes it fairly ironic for her to be a member of FR. It seems her whole reason for existence here is to criticise others and then take horrible offense to being criticized back and flailing around as a noble victim, being harangued by the savage classless patriot drumthumpers who dont fit in with the NWO placesettings.

That she has nopardons for her behaviour I have no doubt.

PSST Don't take her too seriously Bill - this could be HRC or a sister of hers!

Ok, if we assume Bonds hasn't used any supplimental enhancements and played in the 60s you think he'd still be as prodigious a homer-hitter?

Of course he would, especially as he aged, because if you follow his career pattern you catch on that he got better at working a strike zone and reading a pitcher as he got older. I don't see any legitimate reason why he couldn't have flourished in the 1960s, especially given the fair share of power pitching in the National League in those years - beyond Koufax, Marichal, and Gibson, there were Jim Bunning, Chris Short, Jim Maloney (who should have been better than he was but for the arm miseries which in due course tended in those years to nail any decent pitching the Cincinnati Reds developed - oddly enough, it wasn't arm trouble but a ruptured Achilles tendon that finished Maloney off in 1970), Jack Sanford (had his career year in 1962), Bob Veale, Ferguson Jenkins, Tom Seaver (arrival: Rookie of the Year, 1967), a young Steve Carlton, Jerry Koosman, and Larry Dierker, to name some.

Yep, I know Mays did bop 52 in '65, had 49 in '64 and fell off the 37 in '66, but barely anybody was hitting 40 HRs between '64-'68; don't believe Aaron did...

Your believe is hereby shaken: Bad Henry (Sandy Koufax hung that one on him) swatted 40 or more five times in the 1960s, including 44 in 1966 and in 1969. Dick Stuart bombed 42 in 1963, his career year (Dr. Strangeglove and Harmon Killebrew actually had a down-to-the-wire home run title race that ended when the Twins and the Red Sox played each other to finish the season, with Killebrew coming out on top as a result of his hitting against the Sox pitching and Stuart cracking infamously, "If I had to hit against our staff, I'd have hit 60"). And Dick Allen ripped 40 into the seats (and sometimes beyond) in 1966.

Anyway, funny how you so aptly described Gibson, Koufax, and Marichal -- would have been fun watching those match-ups...

They were probably also the most fun pitchers to watch - especially Marichal, with those variable windups and that Rockettes-high leg kick. On the other hand, he was probably the biggest laugh in the Giant clubhouse unless you were the victim of one of his most notorious pranks: his habit of presenting teammates perfume bottles to give their wives as gifts, only to learn the hard way that the perfume bottles were loaded instead with stink bombs. Come to think of it, if he were hitting in the American League in the 1960s, Bonds probably would have had slightly lesser power stats because the American League of the time didn't have as many pure power pitchers as the National League did - Denny McLain (when his head wasn't so far up his ass he couldn't see the moonlight without moving his tongue to one side) and Sudden Sam McDowell, Gentleman Jim Lonborg in his career year, Al Downing when he had his control working, Dean Chance when he wasn't hung over with Bo Belinsky. But that's pretty much it.

Sudden Sam McDowell, by the way, broke a rib in his first major league game - his own. 'Tis true: He whipped one gasser in so hard that the motion cracked one of his ribs.

Perfection, in other things, is a hit and miss thing. :-)

Especially in baseball! ;) (By the way, I agree about Barry Bonds v. his godpoppa...I said it above, they have about the same basic tools but Willie Mays was a far better defencive player. On the other hand, it might surprise you that through 2001, Barry Bonds had a way better on-base percentage than Wonderful Willie: the Say Hey Kid was .387 lifetime, but Bonds through 2001 was .415 on base percentage. Bonds also has a higher slugging percentage through 2001 - .585 - than Willie Mays had for his career, .557, and by virtue of stolen bases to caught stealing was a better baserunner. Mays, on the other hand, was far and away the better fielder and has a slightly higher lifetime batting average.)

The very thought that you seem to be spousing, that Hillary being President would serve your ultimate purpose by creating havoc in the Nation, in the unlikely scenario that when the dust settles, your particular "flavor" of government would emerge victorious, is repulsive to me.

The Constitution allows for a way to change the people running the government, and every person that's in DC right now, has been voted into place by Americans. The fact that you do not like the choices made by the rest of the nation, doesn't give you the right to advocate the overthrow of a constitutionally elected government.

The real outcome of any sort of a popular uprising would create nothing but dead bodies, and your notion that we could "...engage the opposition forces out in the open, where we always have the advantage..." while being incredibly romantic, and very swashbuckling, is bunk.

The reality of it would be a lot more Tiananmen Square, than Bunker Hill. Marxists do not implement their ideology without knowing full and damned well that THEY control the field, and while our Second Amendment protects our rights to bear arms, they will be no match for theirs.

The concept of killing the patient to save the patient doesn't hold water, and that's what you advocate.

Here is the real outcome to your "Hillary for President" fantasy, and the subsequent "uprising"...dead Americans, martial Law, Hillary in charge of the US Army, and using it to police the American people.

No thank you, you're far more dangerous than Hillary.

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.

Radio Free Republic Presents

The Banana Republican Radio Hour

With your host Luis Gonzalez

WHY DO CONSERVATIVES EAT THEIR OWN?

Thursday, August 15th., 9 PM, EST.

Are we our own worst enemies?

Are the divisions so evident in FreeRepublic indicative of the future of the conservative movement?

Can we stand united, or will be fall divided?

Call in and tell us what's on your mind!!!

Brought to you by FreeRepublic.com and The Free Republic Network.