Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This is an excellent definition of "compassionate conservatism" - and why it's nothing more than socialism redux.
1 posted on 01/14/2007 4:13:48 AM PST by cinives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Oberon

pingferlater


2 posted on 01/14/2007 4:16:39 AM PST by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cinives

Give a man a fish .........


3 posted on 01/14/2007 4:18:54 AM PST by Vinnie (You're Nobody 'Til Somebody Jihads You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cinives

And all it's typical crap: lots of unsupported assertions, lots of moralizing, lots of circular arguments, faulty logic, and projecting. Put Gerson in some priestly robes and the picture is complete.


4 posted on 01/14/2007 4:20:09 AM PST by Free Vulcan (Show them no mercy, for you shall receive none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cinives

Christan and Socialist are mutually exclusive terms.

One cannot be both.


5 posted on 01/14/2007 4:31:05 AM PST by Clifford The Big Red Dog (Woof!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cinives

"Compassionate Conservatism" - is in fact nothing more than "Socialism" with a new name.

What concerns me is not what this person believs however, it is the fact that he was Bush's speechwriter.

So, now let us focus on is this man a "National Socialist", or an "International Socialist".


11 posted on 01/14/2007 5:17:56 AM PST by stockpirate (John Kerry & FBI files ==> http://www.freerepublic.com/~stockpirate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Andonius_99

Bump for later...


12 posted on 01/14/2007 5:21:10 AM PST by Andonius_99 (There are two sides to every issue. One is right, the other is wrong; but the middle is always evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cinives

And "Compassionate Conservatism", is what Bush wanted to be known by, his label.

This begs the question, "Is Bush a Socialist?"

I realize that my question will spark some harsh replies, but I voted for him two times.


13 posted on 01/14/2007 5:23:37 AM PST by stockpirate (John Kerry & FBI files ==> http://www.freerepublic.com/~stockpirate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cinives

"a political movement that elevates abstract antigovernment ideology above human needs"

It is not the duty of Government to provide for 'human needs', first that list is an endless and varied list that no one can fill.


15 posted on 01/14/2007 5:27:12 AM PST by stockpirate (John Kerry & FBI files ==> http://www.freerepublic.com/~stockpirate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cinives

So this is the man who led conservatives on the path to socialism lite.

18 posted on 01/14/2007 5:37:51 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cinives
What does antigovernment conservatism offer to inner-city neighborhoods where violence is common and families are rare? Nothing.

Anyone who avoids seeing that "The Great Society" accomplished more destruction of the "family" in the United States than did anything else in our history is being deliberately blind and stupid.

There is such bliss and inner peace in liberalism that it's a wonder we don't all succumb. When you are liberal you never ever need to look at the consequences of your actions.

21 posted on 01/14/2007 5:41:09 AM PST by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cinives
Isn't this the same butt monkey that tried to start trouble about how the Bush cabinet "really" felt about Christians?
24 posted on 01/14/2007 5:47:26 AM PST by haywoodwebb (obama can't be VP. hillary wouldn't have a n-word on her ticket! - I'm black so I can say it -LOL!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cinives
Okay just to clear up. Gerson is not only a speechwriter but a policy advisor to Bush.

Religion, Rhetoric, and the Presidency
Remarks of Michael Gerson, Speechwriter and Policy Advisor to President George W. Bush

It just gets worse every day.

25 posted on 01/14/2007 5:49:41 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cinives
We should not be surprised that Reagan never was popular with the Republican Party leadership: GOP leaders consistently favored the big government conservatism of Nixon, Rockefeller, Ford, and now Bush, to Reagan’s small-government conservatism. Though voters and conservatives adored Reagan, GOP leaders considered his small-government idealism to be an irritating obstacle to winning votes. Voters proved those GOP leaders wrong by wide margins in 1980 and 1984, and in numerous elections since then, but Republican leaders just don’t seem to learn.

That message worked for Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and the "GOP leaders" like that well enough. But an antigovernment message didn't work for Goldwater or for other candidates who've tried it. And even Reagan's victories didn't make the government any smaller.

I suspect people, even if they don't like Bush's budgets, don't trust "anti-government" or "anti-statist" rhetoric because they don't know what people are trying to evoke with such language or how far they are willing to go.

A majority of Americans trusted Reagan. Very few trust the Randians and Rockwellites who often make use of "antigovernment" rhetoric for radical quasi-anarchist purposes. And whatever any of us thinks of Gerson, people are right not to have much use for that extreme fringe.

36 posted on 01/14/2007 11:14:14 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cinives
“What does antigovernment conservatism offer to inner-city neighborhoods where violence is common and families are rare? Nothing."

OK, commie, what should conservatives (or those of any other political persuasion) offer inner-city neighborhoods? The answer is simple - we taxpayers already give too much to deadbeats. We owe the inner city NOTHING.

The time has come that stop the practice of feeding, clothing, and sheltering those that commit violence and fail to contribute in a positive way to society. Until people have to earn their own way, they will not do so.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but 5 decades of welfare has done nothing to solve the problems inherent in many inner-city neighborhoods. Expanding the program will only increase the price of non-achievement.

37 posted on 01/14/2007 11:16:14 AM PST by meyer (Bring back the Contract with America and you'll bring back the Republican majority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson