My fellow Conservatives...please read this.

[Shelzin]

We have suffered a major setback...there is no denying that.

The natural kneejerk reaction it's to lash out, point fingers, distance oneself from defeat.

Instead, I would ask that you take time to process the election results and thoughtfully consider the ramifications of the election, the constructive criticism that you glean from that reflection, and how we can rectify the shortfall we suffered here.

What we need is an After Action Review, not a rerun of the Blame Game.

Defeat is a fork in the road...one path leads to internal destruction, the other to strength through adversity.

Today we choose...choose wisely.

Very admirable and a correct path for republicans.
However I doubt that most of them will take your advice.

The OP was directed at conservatives, not to republicans.

LOL.. Yeah... There was a time when they were one and the same... But yeah... I agree.

 

[beagle9]

You and "sense" don't exactly go together.

"Work" will always be required for man's survival. It seems the issue today is: if the individual gets to choose who they work for:
the gov't, a corporation, or themselves
vs:
the gov't (rules and regulations added making products, services and systems inefficient and slow)

It "appears" that those on the left (that would be "you", even though you throw out some moderate view, occassionally) want to remove "free choice" from individuals, and replace it with gov't "chains" and shackles.

Now if that is not easy enough for you to understand, here is a question for you: how have "people" changed in 3 hundred years to justify eliminating a system that has proven itself and replacing it with systems that have been proven to fail.
Do people have more integrity than they did in the last 3 hundred years?
Are there still people that would rather drink (or do drugs) than work?
Do people still need energy (manpower, hydro, electric, or petro) to accomplish work?

Come on, brain child, explain why we should desert a system that built this country into the most productive, the most generous country in the world, for a system that ruins cultures and countries, EVERYWHERE, it is implemented.

No answer, yet?

There’s no response, nor should there be, because the entire premise is idiocy.

For example, no one on the ‘left’ is seeking to remove "free choice" and replace it with government “chains and shackles.” No one on the ‘left’ is advocating that the things which have made America successful be replaced.

None except Obama, and soon he will attempt to get his way all the way finally.... It will be his last attempt at defeating white wealth in this nation, and then dolling it back out to all whom his cronies think that it should be dolled out to afterwards. The new empowerment of many characters will be on the rise in this nation now, and it will not be based upon the old model that we once had, in which judged people by their character as good peace loving productive individuals, instead of judging them by group or group affiliation, skin color etc. as it will now be done once again in America, except this time in a reversal of or as a get back against those for whom lived so many years ago now.

 

[beagle9]

Very admirable and a correct path for republicans.
However I doubt that most of them will take your advice.

The OP was directed at conservatives, not to republicans.

LOL.. Yeah... There was a time when they were one and the same... But yeah... I agree.

So what you are saying is that these two can split somehow along moral and decency lines, because what it apears is that there is this thought that if the party can be changed in order to win (becoming strictly conservative, and dropping the republican line or title all the way), yet by what "throwing away it's moral compass", then it would win elections again ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The libertarians say they are in it for "freedom' and "liberty", and interchange the words without any understanding of what they mean at all.

logical4u has trouble getting that the line "liberty in law" from America The Beautiful is true. We supplant the Rule of Man with the Rule of Law, which for We the People is the Constitution. All of us are part of the social compact of America. The only way you get out of it, citizens, is to give up your citizenship. You don't get the fruits without the requirements of the compact.

"Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

Some on the left may wish to shackle as well as some on the right surely do.

It is up to all of us in the right of center to left of center to enforce Rule of Law for the freedom and liberty of all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No there was not. We have always had you freaks in the party, but it was not libertarian, ever.

There was a time when they were one and the same... But yeah... I agree.

 

[alan1]

Very admirable and a correct path for republicans.
However I doubt that most of them will take your advice.

The OP was directed at conservatives, not to republicans.

LOL.. Yeah... There was a time when they were one and the same... But yeah... I agree.

I didn't leave the republican party, they left me.
Were the republicans to return to conservatism (especially fiscally), I may return to the party. Until then, I remain unaffiliated.

 

[deaddogseye]

Anyone rejoicing or despairing over the results of the presidential election (and really the whole election) would be well served to read this which i think is exactly right. This election was about incumbency -- and nothing else.



The Lesson of 2004 | The Weekly Standard

 

[logical4u]

You and "sense" don't exactly go together.

"Work" will always be required for man's survival. It seems the issue today is: if the individual gets to choose who they work for:
the gov't, a corporation, or themselves
vs:
the gov't (rules and regulations added making products, services and systems inefficient and slow)

It "appears" that those on the left (that would be "you", even though you throw out some moderate view, occassionally) want to remove "free choice" from individuals, and replace it with gov't "chains" and shackles.

Now if that is not easy enough for you to understand, here is a question for you: how have "people" changed in 3 hundred years to justify eliminating a system that has proven itself and replacing it with systems that have been proven to fail.
Do people have more integrity than they did in the last 3 hundred years?
Are there still people that would rather drink (or do drugs) than work?
Do people still need energy (manpower, hydro, electric, or petro) to accomplish work?

Come on, brain child, explain why we should desert a system that built this country into the most productive, the most generous country in the world, for a system that ruins cultures and countries, EVERYWHERE, it is implemented.

No answer, yet?

There’s no response, nor should there be, because the entire premise is idiocy.

For example, no one on the ‘left’ is seeking to remove "free choice" and replace it with government “chains and shackles.” No one on the ‘left’ is advocating that the things which have made America successful be replaced.

Yes, raising taxes IS placing chains and shackles (those earning money cannot spend it on what they choose, the gov't takes the results of their labor and "redistributes it). They cannot use a large portion of their income due to outrageous tax rates (the original tax rate was 1%). Regulations that are designed to prevent free choice (enterprise), likewise. Telling the "productive" they have to pay for 47% of the country that are not "currently" productive IS making "slaves" (people forced to toil for others) out of the working people in this country.

Forcing the taxpayers to finance things that are absolutely repulsive: abortion, instituting sham marriages (homosexual), etc is taking away "free choice". If I "choose" not to support those ideas, the gov't forces me to pay taxes and then uses those dollars to support plans that are DESTRUCTIVE to society.

Obeying the ten Commandments has been part of our culture from before we were a nation. Honor and integrity was part of every child's upbringing. The current administration is now promoting sex in schools over the 3 Rs; teaching morality is prohibited. Marriage is to be mocked, immitated, or judged as unnecessary. This is all part of the democrat agenda. It is exactly opposite of the culture that built this country into a great nation.

If you can give me a list of what "principals" the democrats are promoting that are along "traditional lines, I would very much like to see them.

 

[logical4u]

The libertarians say they are in it for "freedom' and "liberty", and interchange the words without any understanding of what they mean at all.

logical4u has trouble getting that the line "liberty in law" from America The Beautiful is true. We supplant the Rule of Man with the Rule of Law, which for We the People is the Constitution. All of us are part of the social compact of America. The only way you get out of it, citizens, is to give up your citizenship. You don't get the fruits without the requirements of the compact.

"Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

Some on the left may wish to shackle as well as some on the right surely do.

It is up to all of us in the right of center to left of center to enforce Rule of Law for the freedom and liberty of all.

The "Obamacare" law is not liberty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, my. Taxation is theft? Oh, my.

 

[logical4u]

Oh, my. Taxation is theft? Oh, my.

You and "sense" don't exactly go together.

"Work" will always be required for man's survival. It seems the issue today is: if the individual gets to choose who they work for:
the gov't, a corporation, or themselves
vs:
the gov't (rules and regulations added making products, services and systems inefficient and slow)

It "appears" that those on the left (that would be "you", even though you throw out some moderate view, occassionally) want to remove "free choice" from individuals, and replace it with gov't "chains" and shackles.

Now if that is not easy enough for you to understand, here is a question for you: how have "people" changed in 3 hundred years to justify eliminating a system that has proven itself and replacing it with systems that have been proven to fail.
Do people have more integrity than they did in the last 3 hundred years?
Are there still people that would rather drink (or do drugs) than work?
Do people still need energy (manpower, hydro, electric, or petro) to accomplish work?

Come on, brain child, explain why we should desert a system that built this country into the most productive, the most generous country in the world, for a system that ruins cultures and countries, EVERYWHERE, it is implemented.
No answer, yet?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have no sense, logical4u.

We live in a social compact which is defined by the legislature of We the People.

Your libertarian philosophy is nonsense.

You libers have no weight in the budget compromise this time: none.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have no sense, logical4u.

We live in a social compact which is defined by the legislature of We the People.

Your libertarian philosophy is nonsense.

You libers have no weight in the budget compromise this time: none.

Social compact code for I'm a left wing extremest ^^^^^^

 

[dblack]

... no one on the ‘left’ is seeking to remove "free choice" and replace it with government “chains and shackles."

Sure they are. (So are people "on the right", but that's another story). They want to limit our freedom and increase the power and scope of government. They wouldn't refer to it as "chains and shackles" - they see it as a good thing; a reasonable tradeoff for a presumed increase in security.

But many of us don't see it that way. And since most of these reform plans don't tolerate dissent, it starts to look very much like the kind of authoritarian oppression you're denying.

What do you mean "don't tolerate dissent"?

I mean the laws dictate our behavior and punish us if we don't obey. It's the nature of any law. Which is why we shouldn't resort to laws to solve our problems unless we really think it's necessary to bash heads to make it happen - because the key 'feature' of government is its authorization to compel compliance.

I get frustrated because I actually do believe most liberals mean well with their different reform agendas. But invariably these reforms are diverted away from straightforward plans for helping people to, instead, schemes for controlling them - usually for the benefit of well-heeled lobbying interests.

 

[beagle9]

The libertarians say they are in it for "freedom' and "liberty", and interchange the words without any understanding of what they mean at all.

logical4u has trouble getting that the line "liberty in law" from America The Beautiful is true. We supplant the Rule of Man with the Rule of Law, which for We the People is the Constitution. All of us are part of the social compact of America. The only way you get out of it, citizens, is to give up your citizenship. You don't get the fruits without the requirements of the compact.

"Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

Some on the left may wish to shackle as well as some on the right surely do.

It is up to all of us in the right of center to left of center to enforce Rule of Law for the freedom and liberty of all.

How do you enforce rule of law, when you got a lot of liberals running around now saying, that the law was created by a bunch of old white men, and it has out lived itself now, and so new laws must be created now, and this in order to conform to a new society that no longer respects the whitemans contributions from within the old society, to be transfered over unto this new society??

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are being told that the Founders' opinions don't count today, beagle9, only the Constitution and the case law and the legislation that has been built on it.

You are being told by thinking Republicans we live in the 21st century.

We play by the rules now, not 200 years ago.

I am a white man, a descendant of patriots and founders, both. The contributions of the white man will never be forgotten, but this is a republic of citizens, not just white citizens.

 

[House]

You are being told that the Founders' opinions don't count today, beagle9, only the Constitution and the case law and the legislation that has been built on it.

That's a ridiculous assertion, considering the USSC takes the founders' opinions on relevant issues into consideration when they are hearing a constitutional case.

Separation of Church & State is a prime example of this. It is treated as a constitutional principle because the contents of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of ministers was considered during deliberation processes.

 

[Freewill]

America has changed, you wads in the far right, libertarian, soc con, and neo-con wings.

We had 8% unemployment and a one-debate headstart and we lost, because of you. End of story.

More whiny BS. The game was fixed nothing could have changed the outcome it is obvious. If you want to become one of them then shut the f... up and do it. I rather lose then be a democrat or compromise morality to win an election.

This poster is right. Start your own kkk party and leave all the sane people alone

Right on, go over to the democrat party, the party of the KKK, and have at it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are being told that the Founders' opinions don't count today, beagle9, only the Constitution and the case law and the legislation that has been built on it.

You are being told by thinking Republicans we live in the 21st century.

We play by the rules now, not 200 years ago.

I am a white man, a descendant of patriots and founders, both. The contributions of the white man will never be forgotten, but this is a republic of citizens, not just white citizens.

The founders opinion bears more weight today than your's does. Their opinions give reasons and cause why they made sure we had rights protected from the government.
What in the hell does race have to do with anything are you trying to be a race hustler?

 

[JakeStarkey]

They don't have the authority of law if law conflicts with the opinions.

Tis what tis.

You are being told that the Founders' opinions don't count today, beagle9, only the Constitution and the case law and the legislation that has been built on it.

That's a ridiculous assertion, considering the USSC takes the founders' opinions on relevant issues into consideration when they are hearing a constitutional case.

Separation of Church & State is a prime example of this. It is treated as a constitutional principle because the contents of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of ministers was considered during deliberation processes.