Posted on 03/03/2010 7:14:12 AM PST by massmike
This is not about the libertarian freak-show that the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has become. (“See the bearded lady pushing gays in the military and fighting the war on terrorism the way the French fought World War II.”)
Nor is it meant to be an indictment of Congressman Ron Paul — who is to serious political debate what Comedy Central is to philosophical inquiry.
Neither is it about Grover Norquist’s attempts to make the conservative movement jihad-friendly. Norquist — who sits on the board of the American Conservative Union, CPAC’s parent organization — is the godfather of the Islamic Free Market Institute, a past CPAC co-sponsor. (Do they cut your taxes before or after they cut off your head?)
Rather, the foregoing serve to illustrate widespread ignorance and illusion regarding a word — and it is a word whose correct understanding is essential to America’s survival — conservative.
(Excerpt) Read more at grasstopsusa.com ...
Take comfort.There's still more of us than them.
Let them nominate a man (Paul) that would be nearly 78 by the time he could take office in three years.If they thought they heard old-age cracks about McCain.........
Well said.
Exactly. Every single war we've been involved in since and including Korea has been handicapped by political correctness and executive micromanagement.
It is also no coincidence that almost every war since and including Korea has ended in what is, at best, a stalemate if not outright defeat.
LOL, this hits it exactly.Except that it doesn't. The Paulbots, for all their faults, are usually pro-life and generally skeptical of the gay marriage movement. Their position is a bit more nuanced than my own or most other conservatives. They don't want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but they also don't think other states should be forced to recognize gay marriages simply because Massachusetts does.
Their main divergence with some aspects of conservatism on "moral values" issues is not pornography or abortion, but rather the drug war. And they usually attack it in historical parallels to the prohibition movement of the early 20th century. While I wouldn't go as far as them in the whole legalization movement, I do not find this position to be fundamentally at odds with conservatism proper. Since the founding era we've always had an internal division on the regulation of "vices." Historically it was tied to religion, usually pitting the fundamentalists against the mainline protestants and catholics over alcohol.
I intende it to mean, if they don't begin to see things differently soon, we may lose our sovereignty.
Oops I responded to the wrong post. The reference comes from the Old Testament. God destroyed that Generation.
Most states had state churches in 1789.
In 1789, only Connecticut, New Hampshire and South Carolina did. New Hampshire and South Carolina disestablished their State churches in 1790. Connecticut did so in 1818.
You could arguably include Georgia, since they disestablished a State church under their new constitution in 1789.
That's not even a third of the States inclusive of Georgia.
“So the Founders supported homosexual marriage, abortion on demand and pornography?”
Where and by which Founders were those issues written of?
Regarding abortion, the colonies operated under English Common Law, which became the bassis for America law.
Under common law, abortion “before quikening” (i.e., before the baby’s movement could be felt) was a misdemeanor and abortion after quickening was a felony. (In the 19th Century as science gained a greater understanding of conception and fetal development the laws was changed to make ALL abortions felonies).
If the founders had disagreed with this and believed that abortion was a right, certainly they would have put that in the Constitution or at least we would have the writings of certain founders arguing for abortion rights.
Regarding same sex marriage, the penalty for sodomy in late 18th Century America was generally DEATH.
The idea of same-sex marriage would be unthinkable to the founders or any other 18th Century American.
How can this trend be undone?
True, but I would add that there seems to be a ratcheting mechanism in "other-government" that will not allow a reversal. Also, "other-government" has a one boat philosophy such that it wants to give everybody the same serving of itself in spite of effective self-government. Finally "other-government" is actively looking for fantasy arenas of governance such as global warming in which no self-government is necessary but the punishment will still take place.
Yes, since the sole reason corporations exist is to fit into a lower tax bracket, ie to hide money from govt, to shift the tax burden down the line to the individual. No corporations, no tax shelters, no endowments. The very rich give their inheritance to a fictional person....a corporation....then control that money without ever exposing it to taxation. I would love to start a foundation with billions of my own dollars, have it buy me a house, a jet, cars, boats, trips, college educations, have others donate to it, and of course look so broke to the IRS, that they ignore me too...but it would be wrong for me as well as everyone else.
Unfortunately it’s built into the Defense Department structure as much as anywhere else. I’m afraid it’s all become too bureaucratized - they need to dismantle the thing and rebuild it. And we’d need a president who’s willing to give the media a big fat middle finger when they start whining.
You are completely wrong about the purpose of corporations. Corporate income is DOUBLE TAXED. First, the income is taxed as corporate income. Then, when what is left over is distributed to owners, in the form of dividends, it is taxed again as personal income.
The primary purposes of corporations are:
1) To raise large amounts of capital from a number of different investor-owners.
2) Limited liability. Investing in a corporation allows investors to risk only the amount of their investment, while protecting their other personal assets from creditors of the corporation.
The tax implications are the primary disadvantage of incorporating.
If you do not support the existence of corporations, you are nothing close to a conservative.
Exactly, which is why we need to self-govern, so that the other-govern process doesn't get started.
It's too late. But always self-govern, even if you are the most abject slave.
There was absolutely nothing about our invasion of Iraq that did not qualify as a full fledged war against another government as defined under the Constitution. Sure, it was a weak petty tyrant government in a crappy part of the world. But it was a government, and we made war on it. So why the hell couldn't we be honest with ourselves and declare that war like the Constitution required?
Where I differ with Paul on that sort of thing is I get the feeling he'd vote "no" on most wars that I'd vote "yes" on. But there still needs to be a vote.
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.