Who is the conservative?
-
You entirely mischaracterize history to promote your own agenda, but that should come as no surprise to anyone. The republican party did precisely what Powell wanted in this last election and he still endorsed the democrat candidate. That alone makes one wonder precisely which side he was fighting for when he was wounded, considering that Obama has more in common politically with Ho Chi Mihn than with any one from American history. The only possible exception was Sarah Palin, who is about as mainstream an American as one could find in politics today. So, Sarah Palin is who we are supposed to be defending the country from? Thats the real threat we should all be so afraid of? The invasion of Iraq was not a conservative decision. It was a military decision. The commander in chief determined that Hussien (Saddam that is) was a threat, congress, including Pelosi, Clinton, and many other liberal democrats, agreed and approved the use of force to remove him. Powell who had access to the intelligence, who was free to ask all the question he liked, was just as convinced as any 'neo-con' was. Cheney and Limbaugh, as any patriotic AMericans would, supported a successful conclusion of that mission once we were committed to it. I personally found it unwise, but once my representatives committed the nation to the effort,that was the end of the debate. Powell left the republican party of his own accord. His only interest is rehabilitating his own image which he himself destoyed.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The republican party did precisely what Powell wanted in this last election and he still endorsed the democrat candidate.
He wanted the Republicans to nominate an old man who was an embarrassment in every debate?
Stan Shannon wrote:
That alone makes one wonder precisely which side he was fighting for when he was wounded
And when he received two Legion of Merit honors? For someone who ended up with nothing but "I was there, too" medals you seem quite judgemental of the folks who fought for this country.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, Sarah Palin is who we are supposed to be defending the country from
What the hell are you talking about? Drunk already?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The invasion of Iraq was not a conservative decision
You're right. it was a neocon decision made by the neocons who owned Bush.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It was a military decision
The hell you say. It was a political decision based on an agenda that predated 9/11.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The commander in chief determined that Hussein (Saddam that is) was a threat, congress, including Pelosi, Clinton, and many other liberal democrats, agreed and approved the use of force to remove him.
The commander-in-chief would have determined that Hawaii was a threat if Cheney and Rumsfeld had told him so. The inner-circle cherry-picked the intelligence they would share with the public, Powell, or with the Congress. Hell, I thought it was a good idea once Cheney guaranteed that Hussein had a nuclear weapons program.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Cheney and Limbaugh, as any patriotic AMericans would, supported a successful conclusion of that mission once we were committed to it.
I wish you were right. instead they tried to pull the war off on the cheap (once Cheney finally figured out that we weren't going to get any oil out of the invasion.) A successful conclusion would have required going in there with overwhelming force, occupying the country rather than just the Green Zone, raising taxes, and re-instituting the draft. It was cheaper to let our guys go in there with second rate body armor, unarmored vehicles, and about h
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
feel free to compromise any and all of your principles - it'll make your life much easier.
Spoken by a defender of the republican party. The party of GWB which created the largest single expansion of government in history, exceeding even the excesses of Johnson. The party that so completely abandoned any principles of sound economics that they gave $700B to the banks and insurers that they had failed to regulate and oversee in any reasonable fashion. A party that failed to defend our borders, and prosecuted border patrol agents rather than illegals. A party that preferred cronyism to competence, appointing an officious, arrogant, bumbling ass of an incompetent race track lawyer to oversee our emergency response agencies, and let us not forget the fine talent dispatched to see the securing of the peace in Iraq, Bremmer the clueless... Yes these are fine, principled folk. Much to be admired - in a rear view mirror. All excellent representatives of that so principled party... Now you whine that the centrists brought you down? Give me a fucking break. You did yourselves in, displaying your fine principles for all to see.
Rob Graham wrote:
Spoken by a defender of the republican party conservative, founding principles
come on now, get it right.
Rob Graham wrote:
The party of GWB which created the largest single expansion of government in history
up until 2009 you mean or should say, anyway (if you really want to be accurate).
Rob Graham wrote:
A party that preferred cronyism to competence
have you paid any attention at all to the appointments made by the Magic Negro?
Rob Graham wrote:
Yes these are fine, principled folk.
and in your haste to explain your fawning over Powell you completely forgot to read what I said, that being I am principled, and, just coincidentially I am not a GOP spokesman.
Rob Graham wrote:
You did yourselves in, displaying your fine principles for all to see.
no, not at all - an ignorant electorate has done the country in.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Oakman wrote:
Which pretty much means that the Republican party will cease to exist. As a fringe group, it will cease to be able to raise money or attract new members. After a generation, at the most, it'll be as irrelevant as the Whigs and the Federalists.
That only happens if the democrat agenda succeeds, in which case the republican party should cease to exist.
Oakman wrote:
And, no, Stan, there just aren't enough bubbas in the world to form a viable third party and it's highly unlikely that anyone who understands the 21st century global economy will join a back to the 18th century movement.
You seem to think someone is going to have a choice in the matter.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You seem to think someone is going to have a choice in the matter
If I understand you correctly the only alternatives are either Obama succeeds or America dissolves into a bunch of warring fiefdoms - and you are rooting for the latter - indeed you seem to think you have some mystical power to make this happen, all according to your plan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
feel free to compromise any and all of your principles - it'll make your life much easier.
Spoken by a defender of the republican party. The party of GWB which created the largest single expansion of government in history, exceeding even the excesses of Johnson. The party that so completely abandoned any principles of sound economics that they gave $700B to the banks and insurers that they had failed to regulate and oversee in any reasonable fashion. A party that failed to defend our borders, and prosecuted border patrol agents rather than illegals. A party that preferred cronyism to competence, appointing an officious, arrogant, bumbling ass of an incompetent race track lawyer to oversee our emergency response agencies, and let us not forget the fine talent dispatched to see the securing of the peace in Iraq, Bremmer the clueless... Yes these are fine, principled folk. Much to be admired - in a rear view mirror. All excellent representatives of that so principled party... Now you whine that the centrists brought you down? Give me a fucking break. You did yourselves in, displaying your fine principles for all to see.
Why is this view so prevalant? George W Bush is not the sum total of the Republican party. His name is also not synonymous with Capitalism, contrary to something I've been hearing lately. Yes, Bush boned the pooch on a lot of things, but he is not the party. As for the single largest expansion of government in US history, I guarantee he won't hold that title for long. But don't sh!t on the pricipals. And don't use a couple of crappy politicians as your justification to do so. There's not a politician on earth physically or mentally capable of holding on to pricipals. At least the right has some principals.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Recently both Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheny have indicated that they thought that the Republican party would be better off without the likes of Colin Powell. Leaving aside, for the moment, the relative worth of a man who was wounded in Vietnam vs. two men who between them served a grand total of zero days in the armed services, let us examine their records in our latest war. Just as Emmanuel and Obama are not letting the financial crisis go to waste, both Cheney and Limbaugh (along with a bunch of neocons)saw an opportunity to use the righteous anger and fear engendered in this country over 9/11 by diverting America's focus from Afghanistan where it belonged to Hussein and Iraq which, while ruled by a thoroughly reprehensible government, had done nothing to the U.S. except bribe UN officials along with those of France, Germany and Russia - thus totally frustrating any diplomatic efforts we made to punish them for the first Gulf War. Powell and Armitage seem to have been the only two senior officials in the Bush administration who were old-fashioned conservatives rather than Wilsonians, ready to make the world "safe for democracy," at any price - as long as it was other's blood that was shed. During the 20th century is was almost always the Republicans who questioned whether we needed to go to war, who wished to examine all options before taking up arms, and who remembered the terribly price that our young men pay when old men decided to take the nation to war. Even as recently as Clinton, Republicans were all for focussing on the prosperity of the united States and its citizens, not remaking the rest of the world in our image by force. Had the Cheneys and the Limbaughs listened to the conservatism of Powell and Armitage, perhaps we might have not found ourselves trapped in the quagmire of Iraq; it's entirely possible the Osama would have been captured and the Taliban permanently put down. It is even more likely that the elections of 2006 and 2008 might not have been the total rout of Republicans that they were. (Other things would were part of the problem, of course, the corruption of the appropriations process, Katrina, the pandering to Mexico and China, also had an effect on the elections.) But, of course, they didn't. And now, having taken part in the neocon-architected defeats and failures for our country, they want Powell to leave the Republican party, because he's not conservative enough.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and
-
It's OK for Powell try to drum out of the GOP, say Limbaugh, for being too conservative, but it's not OK for Limbaugh to reply that Powell doesn't really belong in the GOP because he's not conservative enough?
No, you didn't get it at all. My point was that Powell is, at least in foreign affairs, far more conservative that Cheney and Limbaugh.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Spoken by a defender of the republican party. The party of GWB which created the largest single expansion of government in history, exceeding even the excesses of Johnson. The party that so completely abandoned any principles of sound economics that they gave $700B to the banks and insurers that they had failed to regulate and oversee in any reasonable fashion. A party that failed to defend our borders, and prosecuted border patrol agents rather than illegals. A party that preferred cronyism to competence, appointing an officious, arrogant, bumbling ass of an incompetent race track lawyer to oversee our emergency response agencies, and let us not forget the fine talent dispatched to see the securing of the peace in Iraq, Bremmer the clueless...
And nearly all of that happened precisely because of the effort to be more centrist which you, oakman and Powell are promoting. And all of that is why this is precisely a perfect opportunity to rebuild the party with true conservatives.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And nearly all of that happened precisely because of the effort to be more centrist which you, oakman and Powell are promoting.
Bullshit. McCain was persuaded to move hard right, as evidenced by his running mate choice. He ran to the right not the center, but totally bungled on the economic issues. The sins of GWB, Brown, Bremmer, Paulson, Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld can hardly be blamed on centrists. The Republican party made no effort whatsoever to move to the center in 2008, rather it reluctantly accepted a former centrist running hard right with a lousy sop to the right wing as a running mate.
-
Oakman wrote:
The primary purpose of a political party is to win elections. If it can't win, then it should cease to exist. There seems to be a bunch of social conservatives who would rather see the Republican party become irrelevant than provide a viable alternative to the Dems.
The destruction of one party will mean the ultimate destruction of the other. They exist in a symbiotic relationship. One cannot long survive without the other.
Oakman wrote:
FYI: the Republican party has not always been socially conservative. The Republican party has not always been the toady of Wall Street. The Republican party has not always been warmongers. And the Republican party has not always been the party of old white men - only.
No, but that is what the United States of America as a whole has always largely been.
Oakman wrote:
I learned a long time ago to pick my battles - that way I could win some. I simply realised that the technical term for someone who lost every battle because he was fighting on so many fronts, was "loser."
But we aren't picking any battles at all. We're just standing around watching you 'centrists' fight it out with the leftists. Have fun.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
One cannot long survive without the other.
Wrong again, Stan. The Democrats existed for almost 100 years without the Republicans. I suppose that it is possible that once the far right renders the Republican party irrelevant by taking it over, the Dems might split into a centrist party and a liberal one.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, but that is what the United States of America as a whole has always largely been
Only in Mrs McGillicuddy's 4th grade history primer.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But we aren't picking any battles at all
Tell that to Rush.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And nearly all of that happened precisely because of the effort to be more centrist which you, oakman and Powell are promoting.
Bullshit. McCain was persuaded to move hard right, as evidenced by his running mate choice. He ran to the right not the center, but totally bungled on the economic issues. The sins of GWB, Brown, Bremmer, Paulson, Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld can hardly be blamed on centrists. The Republican party made no effort whatsoever to move to the center in 2008, rather it reluctantly accepted a former centrist running hard right with a lousy sop to the right wing as a running mate.
Rob Graham wrote:
The Republican party made no effort whatsoever to move to the center in 2008, rather it reluctantly accepted a former centrist running hard right with a lousy sop to the right wing as a running mate.
Well said - concise and accurate.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Spoken by a defender of the republican party conservative, founding principles
come on now, get it right.
Rob Graham wrote:
The party of GWB which created the largest single expansion of government in history
up until 2009 you mean or should say, anyway (if you really want to be accurate).
Rob Graham wrote:
A party that preferred cronyism to competence
have you paid any attention at all to the appointments made by the Magic Negro?
Rob Graham wrote:
Yes these are fine, principled folk.
and in your haste to explain your fawning over Powell you completely forgot to read what I said, that being I am principled, and, just coincidentially I am not a GOP spokesman.
Rob Graham wrote:
You did yourselves in, displaying your fine principles for all to see.
no, not at all - an ignorant electorate has done the country in.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Rob Graham wrote: Spoken by a defender of the republican party conservative, founding principles come on now, get it right.
Sorry, Mike, but many of the Founding Fathers were radical leftists.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Spoken by a defender of the republican party conservative, founding principles
come on now, get it right.
Rob Graham wrote:
The party of GWB which created the largest single expansion of government in history
up until 2009 you mean or should say, anyway (if you really want to be accurate).
Rob Graham wrote:
A party that preferred cronyism to competence
have you paid any attention at all to the appointments made by the Magic Negro?
Rob Graham wrote:
Yes these are fine, principled folk.
and in your haste to explain your fawning over Powell you completely forgot to read what I said, that being I am principled, and, just coincidentially I am not a GOP spokesman.
Rob Graham wrote:
You did yourselves in, displaying your fine principles for all to see.
no, not at all - an ignorant electorate has done the country in.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
up until 2009 you mean or should say, anyway (if you really want to be accurate).
As of yet, Obama has not equalled the creation of DHS comined with the Economic recovery act of 2008 ($700T gone; wholly Paulson's and Bush's fault - their suggestion over the screams of outrage from their own party); not that I doubt he will before 2010 arrives...
Mike Gaskey wrote:
no, not at all - an ignorant electorate has done the country in.
For the most part, the electorate can only choose from what the party faithful nominate, unless they do as I did and vote their principles knowing it can not win.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And nearly all of that happened precisely because of the effort to be more centrist which you, oakman and Powell are promoting.
Bullshit. McCain was persuaded to move hard right, as evidenced by his running mate choice. He ran to the right not the center, but totally bungled on the economic issues. The sins of GWB, Brown, Bremmer, Paulson, Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld can hardly be blamed on centrists. The Republican party made no effort whatsoever to move to the center in 2008, rather it reluctantly accepted a former centrist running hard right with a lousy sop to the right wing as a running mate.
Rob Graham wrote:
McCain was persuaded to move hard right, as evidenced by his running mate choice.
Can you tell me one single issue Palin is 'hard right' on? What? She wants to put Jews into gas chambers?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You seem to think someone is going to have a choice in the matter
If I understand you correctly the only alternatives are either Obama succeeds or America dissolves into a bunch of warring fiefdoms - and you are rooting for the latter - indeed you seem to think you have some mystical power to make this happen, all according to your plan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
If I understand you correctly the only alternatives are either Obama succeeds or America dissolves into a bunch of warring fiefdoms - and you are rooting for the latter - indeed you seem to think you have some mystical power to make this happen, all according to your plan.
The warring fiefdoms part is up to the rest of you guys.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Why is this view so prevalant? George W Bush is not the sum total of the Republican party. His name is also not synonymous with Capitalism, contrary to something I've been hearing lately. Yes, Bush boned the pooch on a lot of things, but he is not the party. As for the single largest expansion of government in US history, I guarantee he won't hold that title for long. But don't sh!t on the pricipals. And don't use a couple of crappy politicians as your justification to do so. There's not a politician on earth physically or mentally capable of holding on to pricipals. At least the right has some principals.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
George W Bush is not the sum total of the Republican party
Absolutely correct. Nor are the neocons, or the centrists Stan calls liberals, or the Neaderthal branch of Christianity. The problem is that folks are going around announcing that they represent the politically correct police and unless you agree with them, you have to leave the party.
BoneSoft wrote:
At least the right has some principals
Funny, only a couple of years ago there were so many scandals involving conservative republicans, that I was going around saying that there really were some conservatives with principles. Maybe that's just a function of being the party-in-power?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The republican party did precisely what Powell wanted in this last election and he still endorsed the democrat candidate.
He wanted the Republicans to nominate an old man who was an embarrassment in every debate?
Stan Shannon wrote:
That alone makes one wonder precisely which side he was fighting for when he was wounded
And when he received two Legion of Merit honors? For someone who ended up with nothing but "I was there, too" medals you seem quite judgemental of the folks who fought for this country.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, Sarah Palin is who we are supposed to be defending the country from
What the hell are you talking about? Drunk already?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The invasion of Iraq was not a conservative decision
You're right. it was a neocon decision made by the neocons who owned Bush.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It was a military decision
The hell you say. It was a political decision based on an agenda that predated 9/11.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The commander in chief determined that Hussein (Saddam that is) was a threat, congress, including Pelosi, Clinton, and many other liberal democrats, agreed and approved the use of force to remove him.
The commander-in-chief would have determined that Hawaii was a threat if Cheney and Rumsfeld had told him so. The inner-circle cherry-picked the intelligence they would share with the public, Powell, or with the Congress. Hell, I thought it was a good idea once Cheney guaranteed that Hussein had a nuclear weapons program.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Cheney and Limbaugh, as any patriotic AMericans would, supported a successful conclusion of that mission once we were committed to it.
I wish you were right. instead they tried to pull the war off on the cheap (once Cheney finally figured out that we weren't going to get any oil out of the invasion.) A successful conclusion would have required going in there with overwhelming force, occupying the country rather than just the Green Zone, raising taxes, and re-instituting the draft. It was cheaper to let our guys go in there with second rate body armor, unarmored vehicles, and about h
Pure paranoia.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
If I understand you correctly the only alternatives are either Obama succeeds or America dissolves into a bunch of warring fiefdoms - and you are rooting for the latter - indeed you seem to think you have some mystical power to make this happen, all according to your plan.
The warring fiefdoms part is up to the rest of you guys.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The warring fiefdoms part is up to the rest of you guys.
So there is a choice, eh? Surrender to the Bubbas or fight?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
One cannot long survive without the other.
Wrong again, Stan. The Democrats existed for almost 100 years without the Republicans. I suppose that it is possible that once the far right renders the Republican party irrelevant by taking it over, the Dems might split into a centrist party and a liberal one.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, but that is what the United States of America as a whole has always largely been
Only in Mrs McGillicuddy's 4th grade history primer.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But we aren't picking any battles at all
Tell that to Rush.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
I never said there would not be two parties. But the two we now have would cease to exist, just as the whigs and the original democrats did.
Oakman wrote:
the Dems might split into a centrist party and a liberal one.
Than why do you care about we conservatives? Why is it such a big deal to you?
Oakman wrote:
Only in Mrs McGillicuddy's 4th grade history primer.
Back when real american history was still taught.
Oakman wrote:
Tell that to Rush.
I listen to him almost every day. I haven't heard him picking any battles with anyone. he just sits there defending conservatism. Its kind of hard to pick a battle when you are on defense.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
George W Bush is not the sum total of the Republican party
Absolutely correct. Nor are the neocons, or the centrists Stan calls liberals, or the Neaderthal branch of Christianity. The problem is that folks are going around announcing that they represent the politically correct police and unless you agree with them, you have to leave the party.
BoneSoft wrote:
At least the right has some principals
Funny, only a couple of years ago there were so many scandals involving conservative republicans, that I was going around saying that there really were some conservatives with principles. Maybe that's just a function of being the party-in-power?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
The problem is that folks are going around announcing that they represent the politically correct police and unless you agree with them, you have to leave the party.
And yet you are the one who wants to force anyone who disagrees with you politically to live in gated communities.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The warring fiefdoms part is up to the rest of you guys.
So there is a choice, eh? Surrender to the Bubbas or fight?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Surrender to the Bubbas or fight?
That is precisely what you are asking the Bubbas to do.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Rob Graham wrote: Spoken by a defender of the republican party conservative, founding principles come on now, get it right.
Sorry, Mike, but many of the Founding Fathers were radical leftists.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Founding Fathers were radical leftists.
No they weren't. Not even close. To a man, they were as far in the other direction as they possibly could have been. There were all against welfare, centralized planning, powerful government (well except Hamilton, but even he was a staunch capitalist). They believed in rugged individualism, a religious society, and private property. Every shred of evidence we have proves that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.