Posted on 05/17/2005 6:15:46 AM PDT by sawdust
Exactly! The very thing that real conservatives USE to be against. But now it's "Well, I want to do it with MY values/views/vision."
There is a war within conservatism. A war from within is always more difficult than a war from without.
Actually he's not
We are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretence about them, to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience. The world must be made safe for democracy--Woodrow Wilson
The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat. --George Bush
I also find his singling out of Giuliani and Schwarzenegger from the 2004 RNC unfair
Considering neither are conservative what's wrong with it?
That's the part that people like Pat and Alan Keyes just don't seem to like or understand; it's not what they SAY, it's THEM.
That is why what Pat wants is the government to subsidize his ideas
Yep, just like the democrats with their pet programs.
How is it unfair? It's the truth.
'Rudy' was and still is a Democrat - period. He's a liberal gun grabbing statist. He just calls himself a republican - big deal. Does anyone know how he votes when he gets in the booth - NO.
The same with 'Ah-nold'. His only conservative stance is on fiscal matters. Again, big deal.
In fact calling either a RINO is being way too generous and an insult to real RINO's. Both are just 'strong national defense' Democrats. I wouldn't trust either of those 'republicans' to walk my dog.
A pox on both of them.
"I also find his singling out of Giuliani and Schwarzenegger from the 2004 RNC unfair."
"You prove him to be correct with your support for RINO's"
Schwarznegger and Giulani aren't RINO's, they are the left wing of the Republicans, but there is a BIG BIG difference between RINO's and conservative left. Nither of them in the senate would not be as disloyal or backstabbing as Specte or McInsane, et. al. Schwarznegger and Giulani in the senate would roll over the opposition.
"Nither of them in the senate would not be as disloyal "
Neither of them in the senate would be as disloyal
There is much to Pat Buchanon that they skipped, omitted and otherwise glossed over.....and we all know what those points are. Nonetheless, there are a number of things that we can also agree on, specifically 'Over-spending' and 'Illegal Immigration', which are mentioned in the article. To dismiss him completely would be to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'.
STFU Pat and go out and get a real job.
Could you clarify this? Do you think corporate, WTO inspired free-trade is a Conservative value? Just doesn't sound right to me when you freely give the upper hand to your competitors and passably a future adversary.
I agree, as well -- expansion of the military, additional cabinent positions, the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, Marriage Promotion, more Police State, No Child Left Behind, prohibiting drugs from Canada, corporate welfare, farm subsidy, pork, Federal Marriage Amendment, deficit spending -- the government keeps getting bigger and bigger.
And the problem with some of the posters and conservative legislators isn't that they don't KNOW -- it's that they don't care -- they were, all along, no different from the commie left wing authoritarians -- and now that they have control of all the branches -- they want the most power -- and the most power means taking control of the federal government and making laws from the top down.
Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
You forgot the religious stuff -- Federal marriage & Pro-life Constitutional Amendments, tax dollars to promote Marriage, FCC censorship and the Constiution Restoration Act -- all of which provide more legislation at the federal level.
Social Security should have been a winning issue, though -- I want to tear the whole thing down, but the opt-out provision is a no-brainer. If the GOP could get that done, they would garner some conservative clout.
The Republican Party is in power because they were able to get ride of someone like Buchanan who only appeals to less than 1% of the voters.
Free trade is desirable for free men. I am talking about posters who favor ISOLATIONISM in trade. Just like I posted. Some may read something into that, but I stand by the words I post, as I post them.
In my view, a good trade agreement could be written on the back of a match book. Here's an example, " Country "A" and Country "B" agree to charge each other small and uniform duties on the goods that their respective citizens trade with each other."
If you read the speeches I have given in the last six months -- on campaign and political reform, deconstructing the New World Order, a more moral foreign policy -- you will find there ideas with which you strongly agree. I do not recall your opposition to any of these; indeed, you seemed to have been enthusiastic about them. With regard to what you call the "social issues," I do believe the deepest problems in our society are not economic or political, but moral. And while the solution to our social crisis may lie less in politics than the human heart, I am and remain proudly pro-life. Moreover, I believe that political leaders must defend the moral order rooted in the Old and New Testament and Natural Law that is under relentless assault; just as we must defend our heritage, history, and heroes, now being denigrated.
This is why Republicans hate conservatives like Pat Buchanan (and love the likes of Republicans like Arnie and that guy from New York)...
I'll take Buchanan and American sovereignty any day, over the NWO crowd...
I have exchanged with those people as well.
I have also exchanged with people who embrace socialism as long as it is proposed by Republicans. They call themselves conservatives as well.
I have exchanged with those who support means testing SS instead of abolishing it. The President has started down that road. It transforms SS from a Ponzi scheme into a welfare program. But, if Bush likes it, they support it. And they consider it conservative.
I do not.
I hate to say but the more I read Buchanan the more I think he is a tad wacked in his world view. I also think he is a bit racist as well.
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.