This site needs an enema!
Posted on 11/18/2007 8:41:55 PM PST by Jim Robinson
What a tangled web we weave, when we start down the path of comprising our core principles.
Then we start supporting candidates who are very less than ideal and pretty soon we find ourselves where we are today, with three of the top five candidates at odds with the foundational concepts of conservatism either with their current posistions on the issues or their positions yesterday (relatively speaking).
Then we are left with trying to spin the truth to decieve others that either your candidate’s current positions are really not what they are, or their past is not really what it is.
It really is quite shameful
>>
with three of the top five candidates at odds with the foundational concepts of conservatism
>>
And these are what? Abortion? Guns? The Panama Canal? This is absurd. The foundational concepts of conservatism Are Not Issues. They are principles.
Were there no conservatives in the world when abortion wasn’t even on the radar screen? 100 years ago was there any interest at all in abortion as a litmus conservative issue? No. But there was still conservatism. Why haven’t conservatives held firm to their “foundational concepts” and demanded in each Presidential election cycle that their candidate announce publicly that he will retake the Panama Canal by force — given that conservatives opposed turning it over to Panama during the Carter years? The Canal was a huge conservative issue in the late 70’s. Why is Panama not still a “foundational concept?” Why aren’t we using it as a litmus test?
Because times change.
WF Buckley, the voice of conservative journalism in the 60’s and 70’s, defined conservatism as an ideology that supports slow and sometimes stodgy change. And liberalism is an ideology that supports fast and sometimes reckless change. Nothing more and nothing less. There are no timeless litmus issues. There is only that timeless dichotomy as the “core foundational principle.”
Modest government involvement in citizen health care is slow change. Single payer universal coverage administered entirely by the government is fast, reckless change. Romney’s approach is therefore conservative.
Delete the price incentive from the market and it goes haywire. Suppliers lose the incentive to hold down costs and consumers lose the incentive to constrain demand.
It's Econ 101, and obvious to anyone who has not been beguiled by the Professor Harold Hill of the 2008 election, the man with the Jack Lord hair, Willard "Myth" Romney.
I suppose you also want to sell us a Monorail now, or a Boys’ Band.
That's not socialist, it's fascist.
But the euphemisms are so delightfully neutral.
Another soft-sell of a poisonous idea.
That’s the preamble, and you are being most absurd.
The problem is that I'm not sure any of the candidates understand how this occurs.
One thing to remember is that government cannot provide health care. What provides health care is individuals with the intelligence and motivation to learn the skills (art) of medicine and who are then motivated to treat the sick.
If those with the ability to be doctors/phramcists/nurses etc. are not motivated to go through the difficult curriculum to acquire the skills, there will not be health care.
And government involvement is ALWAYS a demotivator.
By that logic, we should volunteer for second-degree burns because they're not as fast and reckless as third-degree burns.
I’m pinging every conservative I can on short order to this thread, which has become a dumping ground for every half-baked socialist and fascist idea in the Romney medical plan talking points memo.
Come and bask in the white-hot glow of Willardian economic ignorance.
'Tron, that would make a great tagline for you.
Not to take anything away from your lovely wife of course!
How is she BTW...she never comes around anymore!
My Sweetness lurks a lot, but doesn’t post much. It’s very kind of you to ask.
And that was a third degree burn...
BTW, and I have asked this in another thread. Are you suggesting that the 13.4% of your guys who have bought the whole “Mitt Romney is a Conservative” bit are right and the remaining 86 % of us members of one of the leading Conservative forums, a group who knows what a conservative looks like, are just idiots or rubes who are not smart enough to see how awesome Mitt’s conservatism is?
Just curious...
I see it as comparable to teachers pushing bond drives “for the children” and then they wind up with pay raises.
Also, like the social security “trust fund”: since money is fungible the taxes squeezed from Americans would be used for other things besides “universal health care”.
Then we would be faced with calls for increased taxes, since it is impossible to kill an established govt. boon-doggle, from the same class of people who gave us the “one-time `86 amnesty” for illegal aliens.
And finally, like the blonde who nearly drowned in the shower following the instructions on the gallon jug of Suave shampoo: “Rinse and repeat”.
And like the blonde, the pols will do it to us until the taxpaying public is thoroughly soaked.
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he’s fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries,
then Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won’t be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He’s good and sore.
Then tax his coffin ,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he’s laid.
Put these words
upon his tomb,
“ Taxes drove me to my doom...”
When he’s gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the
most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the
world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What the hell happened? Can you spell “politicians!” ?????
And NOW, they want me to “press 1” for English. GO FIGURE!!!!
Reporting for duty, sir! :)
******************
Exactly right.
**************
Conservatives have plenty of insight into this issue. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe in socialism, and conservatives believe in self-reliance.
Which are you? If I want to live in England, Canada or Sweden, I'll move there.
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.