Posted on 05/22/2009 5:24:45 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
“The only thing I am resigning myself to is that some of those who call themselves conservatives will refuse to fight faithfully with me because they live in a world of ideology where they bear no responsibility for the consequences of their actions or inaction.”
Where, oh, where has that been said to be the actions of those also willing to fight if necessary?
Being only willing to vote, write letters, run for office, but also willing to take whatever is given is nothing but cowardice. Being unwilling to put your life on the line is weak and will never be the mentality necessary to win even a political battle.
What do you do when your government is 100% out of control? Do the same thing over and over again expecting different results?
When the people no longer have an effective means enforce their demands is when revolution happens. We still have effective means but are discovering it isn’t as effective as we need.
Thanks in no small part to my 100% ideologically pure friends here on FR, who had our backs just enough to stab us in them...
"what then?"
Then I will merrily go down yelling "Wolverines!!!" like the rest of you, at least having the satisfaction of knowing that I did everything I could to head off disaster before an appeal to arms. You, I suppose, will have the satisfaction of knowing that you did everything you could to ensure that the jack-boots get to pry a gun out of your cold, dead fingers, even if in your devotion to that cause you put the jack-boots in power in the first place. I hope both of us will be truly satisfied with our choices if it ever comes to that.
England was a foreign nation an ocean away, and that is why we won. This discussion is about home-grown tyranny.
"The alternative, which is your viewpoint, is to say we should fight a political battle but be prepared to find our actions are limited only to that, and should that fail, we are simply doomed."
You incorrectly characterize my position. I say we should fight the battle to preserve our liberties and the values this nation was founded on in every sphere, whether it be political or martial. However, I also say that the political battle is our best hope for victory, that a martial battle our doom is indeed very likely if not assured, and that I will not hamstring our chances in the former for the sake of the latter.
Whatever makes you happy. Just making sure you didn't want to actually contribute anything to this discussion. If not, I won't waste my time, either.
Really Dan, you don’t have to flail about. We understand the psychology of cowardice. It’s not exactly new, you know. But if it makes you feel better to flail, you go right ahead. We understand.
When their unrealistic obsession with that fight hampers others in their efforts to ensure that fight never has to happen, the people who are being undermined tend to get a little put out.
"Being unwilling to put your life on the line is weak and will never be the mentality necessary to win even a political battle."
I'm sorry, this discussion was never about being WILLING to put your life on the line for the cause. It was about chances of achieving the cause that way, and whether more promising avenues shouldn't be exhausted even if it means losing a little bit of the glory in one's heroic sacrifice if and when only that last desperate hope remains.
"What do you do when your government is 100% out of control? Do the same thing over and over again expecting different results? When the people no longer have an effective means enforce their demands is when revolution happens. We still have effective means but are discovering it isn’t as effective as we need."
If and when a time comes that people like us see the government as 100% out of control and no longer tractable to our demands, it will be because the majority of our fellow Americans enforced their demands instead, or at least happily went along with those in power. Some of us want to try to stop that from happening. But some others won't give us a helping hand because they're afraid that our efforts may impede their ability to just shoot their way out of the situation, which they seem pretty confident about as a solution to all our problems and not a particularly undesirable one at that.
And others understand that people who’ve lost the argument fall back on name-calling. That kind of flailing isn’t new, either. You bore me. I’ll pay attention to you again if and when you actually think of something more to say.
Dan, you go right ahead and vent, if it makes you feel better. We understand. We all know cowards in our lives. It’s really okay. We do understand.
OK... Then what percentage of that 80-100 million do you suppose would have the will to fight a tyrannical government? 10%? 5%? Let's say that it's only 5%. How do you suppose the government with it's 1.5 million or so active duty personnel would do against 4-5 million heavily armed insurgents; many with military training? The planes and tanks you seem so impressed with aren't very useful in urban environments. The fight will be rifleman versus rifleman. There just aren't enough available to the government to deal with an insurgency of that magnitude.
Good. He’s a good Man.
I feel the same way on the 2nd amendment and that is also part of a pro-life stance. If one doesn't have the right to save one's life, then the "right to life" is meaningless.
I am more than willing to allow you your view on that, but when you say that you won't vote for someone that is pro-abortion, then you are a 90%er as well, which would fit your own characterization stated in your earlier post. That's all I'm saying. Again, I don't hold it against you for that view and, imo, I don't think you should hold it against me for my view either.
He lives in Westerville and represents a district that covers much of east Columbus and the suburbs out that way.
And yes if he runs I’ll certainly vote for him. Finally an articulate conservative who can get his point across without having to scream and who can’t be easily typecast and who uses reasonable tones and reasonable suggestions which will win the middle ground voters over to the conservative side.
Of course, but I also want to keep what weapons I have and I would rather have as a governor, someone who I know who he is and what he will do, than one that has already betrayed me and other citizens and his own Party when he held a gov't position before. Voting for someone like that only sanctions betrayal at worse and sleazy misguided opportunism at the least. I'm not into that. If you are, or if the 2nd amendment isn't as important to you, then do what you have to do. I will.
Keeping that in mind, all I can say is that I have been following politics for over a half century, and been on FR a long time, and those experiences have taught me that you work to get as much of your agenda enacted as you can, understanding that while you may not get everything you want every time, you do the best you can and not give up on working to get the rest. Our political system isn't perfect but some choices are very clear. Right now, in this particular race, it is clear to me that Ted Strickland has done absolutely nothing beneficial for the state. Of the two, Kasich has a better political philosophy that would enable a turnaround.
Others have noted their objection to Kasich on the basis of his one compromise on the firearms issue as their basis for rejecting him as a candidate. While I disagree with his stance on that particular legislation, I don't think his position on that particular proposed law is dispositive of an anti-2nd Amendment mindset. Like I said, I know the man and he isn't stupid. If he were to become Governor, I think he would be open to fair-minded consideration of the other side of the issue and therefore subject to persuasion. I don't have any confidence that Ted Strickland, or any other 'Rat, would be so disposed. In that sense, in a head-to-head matchup, Kasich would be, on balance, a better candidate (IMO only) than the 'Rat.
“it will be because the majority of our fellow Americans enforced their demands instead”
Actually, no. It will be because the system has become so corrupt that while you and your fellow Americans write 250,000 letters to your Representative, a wealthy person or corporation has lunch with your Representative and hands them a $250,000 check to ignore you. That is what is happening today. Corruption by a few can completely overrule the will of the majority.
You can vote out that representative each and every election. You can write a letter every day. You can stand outside their office and protest every day. You can do anything you’d like, but when the money is doing the talking you are not going to be noticed.
What are you going to do then? Run for office and try to change the law? That would be laughable. The rest won’t vote for your law. Maybe by sheer luck you get a small minority that makes for change but odds are they, too, will succumb to the money.
Corruption is why we will go down the drain, not because the majority wants it.
I fully agree except for the last point. I would state it in these terms: "I want candidates who will defend the right to life". Period. Because that is how it is stated in the Declaration and the Constitution.
The on the gun control issue, for me at least, it isn't so much the fact that he voted for the assault weapons ban (although that is part of it, for sure) _but_ that he compromised a plank of the Republican party and passed a bill for Clinton that wouldn't have passed without his vote or the votes of the people in the Republican ranks that he took with him. And if elected, they can rightly claim that 'even Kasich voted for the assault weapons ban and the Brady bill'. And they most certainly will.
This betrayal of principles is more operative than the actual issue that he gave to Clinton. It is this type of softness that the liberals continue to use to whip the Republicans whether it is McCain and Graham who support Obama's restrictions of EIT's or the closing of Gitmo or whether it is using Martin Feldstein's and Lindsay Graham's comments agreement with nationializing the banks.
When those type of statements are made, the libs can use them in order to show that even (what they consider) "smart Republicans" (and they will even use the term 'conservatives') agree with them on these issues. And as far as elections go, that is exactly the type of moderate thinking that lose elections for the Republicans and that has been shown time and again. This type of behavior, while it might make those doing it the 'darling of the press' (until they actually run against one of theirs) but it doesn't win elections. And anything that we can do to discourage this, ie. by not supporting or voting for, or supporting more principled candidates in the primaries is the only way for us to gain back a majority and start winning elections.
FWIW I think if Kasich is the candidate he owes folks who feel as you do at least an honest explanation of why he took the positions he did, and an acknowledgment of the weakness it exposes as a matter of political strategy. It is a fair question and a good candidate should have a reasonable answer. Conservatives as a general rule value the Constitution as an enduring document (to borrow Scalia's words) and tinkering with any of its provisions should not be taken lightly. Laws of questionable constitutionally should certainly be avoided.
In Kasich’s case, because of the betrayal, my choice, and I stated this earlier in the thread so it’s no secret, will be ‘anyone but Kasich’. If Coughlin wins the primary against Kasich, I will vote for him, but if not, I’ll vote for Strickland who has a A rating from the NRA.
I also just don’t like Kasich’s wishy washy personality - I don’t trust him to hold firm on principles - but his past betrayal plays a part in that.
As far as “FWIW I think if Kasich is the candidate he owes folks who feel as you do at least an honest explanation of why he took the positions he did, and an acknowledgment of the weakness it exposes as a matter of political strategy.”
IF he, for example, would do a full mea culpa and then, say, do an interview and pass muster at the NRA convincingly, many, (not me for the reasons I’ve stated), may ‘forgive’ him and vote for him or at least not vote against him. Anything short of that though wouldn’t be effective, imho. I’ve talked to a lot of people who at this point, like me, would _never_ vote for him.
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.