Conservatives, keep this in mind and plan.

[Mustang]

Here's my addition:

I'll comment on those people.

Glenn Beck is a conspiracy theorist who seems unable to find a conspiracy theory he won't embrace in one form or another. The problem comes when Glenn tries to tie them all together because all Glenn seems to be able to do is tie himself in knots. Admittedly, he has enriched himself, but he doesn't appear to be able to discern fact from fantasy which would be perfectly fine, even laudable, in a high end escort, but it's laughable if credibility is what you seek. Consequently, I laugh at him and anyone who takes him seriously.

Ann Coulter was trained as a lawyer which is hard to believe given a lawyer's tendency for dry dispassionate writing which contrasts sharply with Ann's natural gift for incendiary red meat rhetoric. Yes, she's the mean HS girl who found new adult victims like the Jersey Girls to torture as they reeled from their post 9-11 devastation and loss. No, just like Ann thinks there's no such thing as a victim you shouldn't kick when they're down, Ann seems to believe that there's no conservative reprobate she can't rehabilitate with a book and a few carefully chosen words to show that a man like Joe McCarthy was really a swell guy, after all. I await Ann's next book where she regales the world with the fun-filled days of Menachem Begin's youth when he was a terrorist killer who bombed and hanged people to further his political agenda. She's may be a natural born polemicist, but her judgment on right versus wrong, or good versus evil is severely clouded to the point of opaqueness by her political leanings. Therefore, her objectivity is flawed to the point of resembling the ravings of a mad woman.

William Bennett is a man who once had the temerity to write a book entitled "The Book of Virtues: A Treasure of Great Moral Stories" in order to instruct everyone else on morality despite the fact that he had a very serious gambling problem at the time. But it was okay because he didn't mention gambling as a moral shortcoming in the book. See how that works? I've had the opportunity to listen to Bennett's early morning talk radio show a couple of hundred times (at least), and all I can say is that he's one unapologetic propagandist who will shamelessly put any liar on the air to spread any rumor in order to discredit the political opposition. Don't believe me? I once heard him put a guest on his show who accused Democrats of essentially being terrorist coconspirators, and Bennett, a former Reagan cabinet officer never uttered one syllable of protest at such an outrageous charge. All I can say is his book on morality must be based on Machiavellian morality because his behavior isn't something I would want any child to emulate let alone learn from someone who used to be the education secretary of the United States of America. But undoubtedly, Bennett would have no trouble squaring that moral circle as long as the ends justified the means. In my opinion, when any lie, any falsehood that furthers your goals is considered wholly acceptable, that's an example of rhetorical terrorism, and perhaps future copies of his book should be retitled "The Book of Bullshit" in order to comply with the truth in advertising laws.

So we can assume, by your unbiased reviews of these authors, that you aren't a fan. Big news there.

You know, I recall, back in the dark ages, being fed a steady diet of Nietzsche. I was young and impressionable and fell for his crap hook, line and sinker. Then, over a drunken, pot-filled weekend, I tackled "Thus Spake Zarathustra".

When I finally came to my senses on Monday morning, I realized what the term "pseudo-intellectual" actually meant.

Stop "analyzing" everything you encounter. It will give you a headache.

it is not even HIS views. It is a copy&paste of some blogger, because that is all he can do - copy & paste, not lay out his own views - in order to have ones he should be able to THINK, which is not the key feature of a leftard

Wrong again. They're my words from beginning to end. I wrote them in Word since my laptop has a tendency to delete some of what I'm typing and I knew I was only going to attempt something that close to an editorial once in this thread. But you can do a search for it if you want to. You won't find it anywhere else. But it wouldn't surprise me one bit if someone else takes it and put's THEIR name on it.

See, YOUR problem is that conservatives are such shitty writers and spellers that you automatically think everyone else must be too. But some people actually paid attention in school instead of daydreaming while forming their opinions on subjects they never studied.

 

[Mustang]

Here's my addition:

I'll comment on those people.

Glenn Beck is a conspiracy theorist who seems unable to find a conspiracy theory he won't embrace in one form or another. The problem comes when Glenn tries to tie them all together because all Glenn seems to be able to do is tie himself in knots. Admittedly, he has enriched himself, but he doesn't appear to be able to discern fact from fantasy which would be perfectly fine, even laudable, in a high end escort, but it's laughable if credibility is what you seek. Consequently, I laugh at him and anyone who takes him seriously.

Ann Coulter was trained as a lawyer which is hard to believe given a lawyer's tendency for dry dispassionate writing which contrasts sharply with Ann's natural gift for incendiary red meat rhetoric. Yes, she's the mean HS girl who found new adult victims like the Jersey Girls to torture as they reeled from their post 9-11 devastation and loss. No, just like Ann thinks there's no such thing as a victim you shouldn't kick when they're down, Ann seems to believe that there's no conservative reprobate she can't rehabilitate with a book and a few carefully chosen words to show that a man like Joe McCarthy was really a swell guy, after all. I await Ann's next book where she regales the world with the fun-filled days of Menachem Begin's youth when he was a terrorist killer who bombed and hanged people to further his political agenda. She's may be a natural born polemicist, but her judgment on right versus wrong, or good versus evil is severely clouded to the point of opaqueness by her political leanings. Therefore, her objectivity is flawed to the point of resembling the ravings of a mad woman.

William Bennett is a man who once had the temerity to write a book entitled "The Book of Virtues: A Treasure of Great Moral Stories" in order to instruct everyone else on morality despite the fact that he had a very serious gambling problem at the time. But it was okay because he didn't mention gambling as a moral shortcoming in the book. See how that works? I've had the opportunity to listen to Bennett's early morning talk radio show a couple of hundred times (at least), and all I can say is that he's one unapologetic propagandist who will shamelessly put any liar on the air to spread any rumor in order to discredit the political opposition. Don't believe me? I once heard him put a guest on his show who accused Democrats of essentially being terrorist coconspirators, and Bennett, a former Reagan cabinet officer never uttered one syllable of protest at such an outrageous charge. All I can say is his book on morality must be based on Machiavellian morality because his behavior isn't something I would want any child to emulate let alone learn from someone who used to be the education secretary of the United States of America. But undoubtedly, Bennett would have no trouble squaring that moral circle as long as the ends justified the means. In my opinion, when any lie, any falsehood that furthers your goals is considered wholly acceptable, that's an example of rhetorical terrorism, and perhaps future copies of his book should be retitled "The Book of Bullshit" in order to comply with the truth in advertising laws.

So we can assume, by your unbiased reviews of these authors, that you aren't a fan. Big news there.

You know, I recall, back in the dark ages, being fed a steady diet of Nietzsche. I was young and impressionable and fell for his crap hook, line and sinker. Then, over a drunken, pot-filled weekend, I tackled "Thus Spake Zarathustra".

When I finally came to my senses on Monday morning, I realized what the term "pseudo-intellectual" actually meant.

Stop "analyzing" everything you encounter. It will give you a headache.

it is not even HIS views. It is a copy&paste of some blogger, because that is all he can do - copy & paste, not lay out his own views - in order to have ones he should be able to THINK, which is not the key feature of a leftard

I answered your accusation once, and no response from you was forthcoming. So, I'll ask the question straight out: Are you going to offer up some kind of flimsy evidence to substantiate the charge that I've engaged in some kind of plagiarism, or are you going to man up and apologize for libeling my forum reputation?

 

[cutter]

I am not familiar with them. Are the strictly historical or are they allegorical?

Bill O'Reilly little known fact:

He has a BA in History, so these are based strictly on historical premises only. He taught History and English at Monsignor Pace High School. So I don't think he's too stuck on allegory.

Does having a BA in History and experience teaching History and English in HS mean anything?

Talk about irony. The progressives control education and are the first to tell you their teaching in High School sucks. One conservative teacher can not overcome the teaching of the rest of them.

 

[Avatar4321]

Glenn Beck...Ann Coulter...

The "Truth"......

Yeah. It's amazing what you learn when you actually read.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Bill O'Reilly little known fact:

He has a BA in History, so these are based strictly on historical premises only. He taught History and English at Monsignor Pace High School. So I don't think he's too stuck on allegory.

Does having a BA in History and experience teaching History and English in HS mean anything?

Talk about irony. The progressives control education and are the first to tell you their teaching in High School sucks. One conservative teacher can not overcome the teaching of the rest of them.

Did I say anything like that?

 

[Avatar4321]

The Way to Wealth by Ben Franklin. It's short and very to the point.
The Original Argument
Ben Franklin's Art of virtue (Book isnt written by him its just about him)
George Washingtons Sacred Fire.
The Bible

 

[Avatar4321]

I am not familiar with them. Are the strictly historical or are they allegorical?

Bill O'Reilly little known fact:

He has a BA in History, so these are based strictly on historical premises only. He taught History and English at Monsignor Pace High School. So I don't think he's too stuck on allegory.

Does having a BA in History and experience teaching History and English in HS mean anything?

It means he is significantly more qualified to write a history book than someone who is say A community organizer is qualified to be President of the United States.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Bill O'Reilly little known fact:

He has a BA in History, so these are based strictly on historical premises only. He taught History and English at Monsignor Pace High School. So I don't think he's too stuck on allegory.

Does having a BA in History and experience teaching History and English in HS mean anything?

It means he is significantly more qualified to write a history book than someone who is say A community organizer is qualified to be President of the United States.

It does? Cool!

 

[Avatar4321]

When it comes to the ACA, let's face facts. When it was voted on, Pelosi said It first and she was correct. "If you want to know what is in it, you'll have to pass it first." Well, we are getting to that part. Once the website is up and running Americans will see and experience all of the ramifications of the law and make their own determinations and conclusions of the law. Some may love it and some may not. We'll see.

Until then all of us, The Democrats, Republicans and Independents are talking through their hats. No one knows how it's going to come out. It is all speculation.

All this big talk is useless. Let's just be friendly and wait. Shall we?

I don't know that I disagree. I don't have to shoot my foot to know that in most situations it would be a bad idea.

ACA has been a bad idea from the beginning. It's not going to take a rocket scientist to realize that the results are going to be bad. Especially when it's already doing the exact opposite of what it was supposedly designed to do.

 

[boilermaker55]

And you are the only one that knows the Constitution inside and out and are a perfect authority about how to interpret the Constitution ....blah..blah...blah..blah..blah.
Constitutionalists like yourself probably do not live by the means it was meant to project.
If it does not fit your line of thinking....just interpret it how it best fits you.

Here's one.

The US Constitution.

The Founders weren't necessarily "conservative" by your standards, but they exemplify the quote you used by Winston Churchill, they literally wrote history. I have a full copy of the Constitution, fully annotated, 21 pages long. Bill of Rights and all 27 Amendments. If you want to learn of your nation's history, first you must explore it's foundations. I am currently in the process of printing off all of the Federalist Papers. This would be another place to start.

 

[Avatar4321]

Does having a BA in History and experience teaching History and English in HS mean anything?

It means he is significantly more qualified to write a history book than someone who is say A community organizer is qualified to be President of the United States.

It does? Cool!

Yes it does. But then that and a dollar could get you lunch off the dollar menu.

 

[RandallFlagg]

So we can assume, by your unbiased reviews of these authors, that you aren't a fan. Big news there.

You know, I recall, back in the dark ages, being fed a steady diet of Nietzsche. I was young and impressionable and fell for his crap hook, line and sinker. Then, over a drunken, pot-filled weekend, I tackled "Thus Spake Zarathustra".

When I finally came to my senses on Monday morning, I realized what the term "pseudo-intellectual" actually meant.

Stop "analyzing" everything you encounter. It will give you a headache.

it is not even HIS views. It is a copy&paste of some blogger, because that is all he can do - copy & paste, not lay out his own views - in order to have ones he should be able to THINK, which is not the key feature of a leftard

I answered your accusation once, and no response from you was forthcoming. So, I'll ask the question straight out: Are you going to offer up some kind of flimsy evidence to substantiate the charge that I've engaged in some kind of plagiarism, or are you going to man up and apologize for libeling my forum reputation?

Whether or not you plagiarized is of no importance to me. You are a liberal and the ends ALWAYS justify the means. Vox has asserted that you are a cheat. Are you?

As to your question to me concerning Nietzsche, I haven't read anything from that coke-head since the early 70s. His "musings" are nothing more than those of a typical liberal mad man.

When I choose philosophers - I go with Marcus Aurielius. Period, end of story

 

[Nosmo King]

I know no one wants to think this way, no one wants to think that it's over. Many here and in conservative think tanks all agree that it isn't time to give up. I could go on making a point that stupidity and laziness is going to win the day over conservative values but that isn't the purpose of this thread. I do t want to argue about whether we can pull the country back or not, I'm more of a "be Prepared" kind of guy.

That said, here's the point.

The democrats via the unions control the schools, the colleges, Hollywood and the main stream media. They will be turning out potential voters that are more and more ignorant every day. Winston Churchill said; "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it!". That applied to Obama and the democrats but literally. Through the schools, the media, and Hollywood, they will rewrite history.
We need to preserve the truth. The truth about our country's history from the beginning and most importantly, what has happened to it since the rise of progressivism.

What we all need to do is to collect books that tell the truth, and make sure future generations read them and know the truth. If you know some titles from conservative authors list them here. I have been building my collection for a while, and I suggest you all do the same.

Here is a few that I think should be in every conservative's library:

"Control" Glenn Beck
"Guilty" Ann Coulter
"The American Patriot's Almanac" William J. Bennett

Conservatives, please add to the list.

Are you looking for a scapegoat or two? Academia, Hollywood, and the old Conservative favorite boogeyman: THE MEDIA are to blame for our woes? If Conservatives appealed to the better angels of our humanity; peace, tolerance, acceptance, brotherhood and egalitarianism perhaps their image (which is really what you're complaining about) might be burnished and glow like those of our American heroes.

But what have we seen from Conservatives lately? Petulance, obstinence, intractable ideology and brinksmanship rather than statesmanship. If they intend to lead by example, the example they have proffered is one bereft of inspiration and reason. Does the fact that the most ardent Conservatives 'serving' in Congress voted to shut down the whole of the federal government and crash our credit into the ocean bode well for how the contemporary Conservative will be seen in history?

Here's a hint: start by being loyal to the American people and not your narrow political ideology. People respond well when their interests are taken to heart. They will deliver dismal polling data when they feel that a very narrow political outlook is the priority of the Conservative movement.

If you want to be loved, love. If you want to be hated, hate. If you want to be seen as responsible, act responsibly. But if you hitch your wagon to a star that throws heat but no light, stick with the Tea Party movement. Your image will be that which you create.

Like most ideologues, you begin with a premise that your ideology is pure, and any opposition to that ideology is necessarily wrongheaded and contrary to the welfare of the people. Then, you throw in a few halftruths for effect, and begin to spin the truth to your partisan political bias.

It should be obvious to an intelligent person that when you have to accept halftruths and spin to justify your actions and or your desires, something is wrong with your political concepts.

To settle one of your sophmoric arguments, one only has to note that no impass is a one sided affair. It takes two to tango, and it takes two opposing sides to reach the point where the government is shut down. It is one thing to spew partisan BS, it is quite another thing to actually believe that what you are spewing is the truth.

Although conservatism is as much a political ideology as liberal/socialism, it is neither narrow, nor anti people. And, it is not, and never has been anti-government. Conservatism is based on the ideals and social concepts that built this great nation. You would never understand that, because you do not believe that the vast majority of people are fully capable of maintaining their own lives, and/or following their own dreams.

One does not need a doomsday bunker to survive the ultimate results of liberal idiotology. However, one better have the means to survive life in a third world economy. We are well on our way to achieving that dubious status. Who will be sending you care packages?

Actually I started my post illustrating the fact that contemporary Conservatism is set up to appeal on the basis of fear, hatred and suspicion. Karl Rove (the "architect" of the contemporary Conservative movement) said as much in his book! Contemporary Conservatism uses scapegoats to deflect the short comings of their own policy decisions.

As for your observation that it takes two to tango, you might consider what the Tea Party Republicans were asking during their fit of pique. They were not trying to "negotiate" they were asking for capitulation. They were asking us to ignore these facts: the Affordable Healthcare Act (AHA) was passed by congress and signed into law. It was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. The Republican nominee (Mitt Romney) ran on repeal of the AHA and was soundly defeated. What the Tea Party wanted was to ignore those facts and have the President and the Senate capitulate to their demands.

 

[Dutch]

What about conervative films? "Birth of a Nation" and the classic "An American Carol" should be save for future generations.

 

[RandallFlagg]

When it comes to the ACA, let's face facts. When it was voted on, Pelosi said It first and she was correct. "If you want to know what is in it, you'll have to pass it first." Well, we are getting to that part. Once the website is up and running Americans will see and experience all of the ramifications of the law and make their own determinations and conclusions of the law. Some may love it and some may not. We'll see.

Until then all of us, The Democrats, Republicans and Independents are talking through their hats. No one knows how it's going to come out. It is all speculation.

All this big talk is useless. Let's just be friendly and wait. Shall we?

Actually, I beg to differ. I sincerely believe that each and every one of us knows the outcome of this albatross. I am routinely chastised because I defend my taking of Social Security for the fact that I entered into a contract with the Federal Government some 54 years ago. I DEMAND payment of my contract with the government and, frankly, I don't care how they do it - in so much as they DO IT.

Once a number of the population has actually enrolled in this "bait and switch" program (and began paying for it) they have a reasonable expectation of a return for their money. Therefore, the government will be required by law, to full fill their "end of the bargain".

The ACA is here and it will never go away - by design. It may be replaced, at some point, by the socialist "single payer" deal - but it will never go away. Congratulations America - you have effectively murdered the most envied Health Care System in the world; to be replaced with mediocrity. Pat yourselves on the back!!

 

[kaz]

What about conervative films? "Birth of a Nation" and the classic "An American Carol" should be save for future generations.

"Birth of a Nation" was a film by Democrats about Democrats. Now you're good with blacks, as long as they submit to your will. But they try leave the Democratic plantation and your preferred solution is still lynching.

As for "An American Carol" you miss the good old days where liberalism was unquestioned, don't you dutch? Damn new media, conservatives in Hollywood, it just needs to be stopped. Other points of view just need to be silenced.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Hmmmm. Have I just said something that you have heard one of those people say?

Sounds to me like he's saying he watches Rachel Maddow's show...

Funny story there. We were for years a Nielson family, meaning we represented about 10K viewers in the ratings. Rachel Maddow cracks me up. I watched other MS-NBC shows too, but my daughter specifically gave me tons of crap about Rachel Maddow for giving her ratings. I don't know why Rachel bothered my daughter the most. Not that she didn't complain for the others, but she particularly gave me crap for watching the angry gay chick.

I'm not as shallow as you all that I can't watch people I disagree with. But I find your argument that people are parroting Rush, Hannity, Fox and that sort of thing to be just extreme intellectual shallowness and laziness and an admission that even you know your arguments are stupid. Which is why I always mock you for it. I see nothing admirable about not watching or listening to people you disagree with.

BTW, I loved Air America. Randy Rhodes was my favorite. Wow, what a whack job. She was freaking nuts. But she was a hoot. Until they kicked her off. Wow, being kicked off Air America and their three viewers (thanks to me, else it would have been two). That's serious nuts.

Well, we were a Nielsen family too for a couple of years and every time I filled out the questionnaire I had to write in "Documentaries" as my television viewing of choice. So don't get too excited over yourself or what being a Neilsen household means....(jackshit).

 

[kaz]

Sounds to me like he's saying he watches Rachel Maddow's show...

Funny story there. We were for years a Nielson family, meaning we represented about 10K viewers in the ratings. Rachel Maddow cracks me up. I watched other MS-NBC shows too, but my daughter specifically gave me tons of crap about Rachel Maddow for giving her ratings. I don't know why Rachel bothered my daughter the most. Not that she didn't complain for the others, but she particularly gave me crap for watching the angry gay chick.

I'm not as shallow as you all that I can't watch people I disagree with. But I find your argument that people are parroting Rush, Hannity, Fox and that sort of thing to be just extreme intellectual shallowness and laziness and an admission that even you know your arguments are stupid. Which is why I always mock you for it. I see nothing admirable about not watching or listening to people you disagree with.

BTW, I loved Air America. Randy Rhodes was my favorite. Wow, what a whack job. She was freaking nuts. But she was a hoot. Until they kicked her off. Wow, being kicked off Air America and their three viewers (thanks to me, else it would have been two). That's serious nuts.

Well, we were a Nielsen family too for a couple of years and every time I filled out the questionnaire I had to write in "Documentaries" as my television viewing of choice. So don't get too excited over yourself or what being a Neilsen household means....(jackshit).

We represented 10K homes, it is what it is. What does that have to do with what I said other than you want to be a prig about it?

BTW, we filled out no questionnaires, you were a lower level. You're right not to be impressed with what you did, you weren't really part of the ratings, you were part of their validation process.

For us, they monitored everything we watched directly. They had equipment hooked up to every TV, DVR, DVD player in the house. Even our VCR. They would call us every couple months to ask us to test the VCR because they got nothing on it. I kept saying we aren't using it, it's a freaking VCR!

 

[Nosmo King]

What about conervative films? "Birth of a Nation" and the classic "An American Carol" should be save for future generations.

"Birth of a Nation" was a film by Democrats about Democrats. Now you're good with blacks, as long as they submit to your will. But they try leave the Democratic plantation and your preferred solution is still lynching.

As for "An American Carol" you miss the good old days where liberalism was unquestioned, don't you dutch? Damn new media, conservatives in Hollywood, it just needs to be stopped. Other points of view just need to be silenced.

How long will it take to understand the difference between political party and political ideology? It will probably never happen. Conservatives will always hide behind the skirts of the Republican Party of 1890 in order to get cover for the historical crimes of the Conservative movement.

 

[kaz]

What about conervative films? "Birth of a Nation" and the classic "An American Carol" should be save for future generations.

"Birth of a Nation" was a film by Democrats about Democrats. Now you're good with blacks, as long as they submit to your will. But they try leave the Democratic plantation and your preferred solution is still lynching.

As for "An American Carol" you miss the good old days where liberalism was unquestioned, don't you dutch? Damn new media, conservatives in Hollywood, it just needs to be stopped. Other points of view just need to be silenced.

How long will it take to understand the difference between political party and political ideology? It will probably never happen. Conservatives will always hide behind the skirts of the Republican Party of 1890 in order to get cover for the historical crimes of the Conservative movement.

That's the liberal talking point. I live in North Carolina, but I'm from the north. The biggest southern racist I know is a Democrat. Racism here is still far more prevalent in the Democratic party. Those who switched to the Republican party in the south did it because they finally realized that the Democratic party didn't speak for them and didn't represent them. They wanted smaller government and were tired of voting for people who voted for Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker. The racists stayed because they still think you do speak for them.