Kidding aside, the Repubs went "wrong" when we lost control over who writes the definitions of all those words.
Tough to argue otherwise, eh?
"And the selfish or other narrow usually short-term interest part is largely what is destroying this republic. Those interests involve the agendas of socialists/elitists, feminists, radical environmentalists, atheists, proponents of one-world government, entitlement mentalities, and innumerable other individual-liberty-destroying philosophies."
The greedy, hell bent animals at the helm of the multinationals really deserve a place of special & honorable mention, too.
"And the desire to be elected (or re-elected), and the requisite pandering to those special interests which is now necessary to accomplish that feat, has placed our republic’s sovereignty, security, and national interests -- and its citizens’ individual liberties -- way (way, way) down on the list of priorities of nearly all modern American politicians (of which almost all are exclusively of the 2b type)."
Well joanie?
Here's what I found while tracking the Liberal-Socialist mediots & their insideous behaviors.
The American media forms an overwhelming amount of public opinion; and, the fact is the American media is owned lock, stock & barrel by a few very large coporations.
Corporations who're enjoying windfall profits at this very moment, as we all know.
Those profits are naturally generated by & due largely to Chinese (or whateverinthehellother 3rd world country) slave labor manufactured products that're then exported *back* to the USA for sale.
Can'tcha see?
I'm afraid there's no time for all that "individual liberties" bilge any more than there is concern about our sovereignty.
We're *all* seeing what constitutes their "national interests," don'tcha think?
So as the American citizen takes it on the chin losing their jobs to the Chinese?
The corporate giant's networks, newspapers, & mags articulate the popular rage by promoting the "Liberal-Socialist" agenda, they collect their profits, & no one's the worse for wear.
Sweeeeeeet, eh?
Confused??
Don't be.
That dictionary of yours should have *something* to say about it to clarify things. ;^)
It took this POTUS' administration for me to come to understand the level of mutual *cooperation* the American politicians currently are enjoying!!
All the *politicing's* done under the guise of viscious infighting & other phoney trumped up arguing over social issues on behalf of the peoples supposedly served by 'em while the gravey train pulls outa town with 'em all on board in the smokin' lounge.
I mean these guys we've voted for -- all of 'em -- should damned well be nominated for Oscars, I swear.
>Is merely another redefinition, and, a clear signal to the right wing constituency to either change to fit them; or, be without political representation .... Landru
"I can’t speak for you, Dan, but my political representation is locked within the fragile mind of a dear man suffering from the ravages of Alzheimers out in the People’s Republic of California."
You're not alone in your thinking, there.
I said what I did (before) only because of the man's condition.
It's that horrible condition which has permitted 'em to twist & distort the very meaning of his ideas without him *leaping* outa his bed to bitch slapping the hell outa a few dozen of the worthless shills & punks who've connived their way to the highest levels of the once "conservative" right.
"And once that rare and wonderful man is no longer living, even the glimmer of a leader who represents rational, common sense, conservative, moral, honest, liberty-and-sovereignty-defending, character-based governance -- stubbornly dedicated to the foundational underpinnings of this republic -- will have been extinguished (maybe forever)."
No doubt about it, you're absolutely correct.
Just one thing to add to that, my friend.
These are ghouls we speak of, so they're not going to *wait* for the man's heart to stop beating.
...before they implement their schemes.
"...despite the need to rebuild America's defenses, Reagan never let it be an excuse to give up on controlling domestic spending. It would have been a lot easier for him to buy the votes needed for national defense by loosening the domestic spending reins. But he never did and fought hard to bring domestic discretionary spending down from 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product in 1980 to 3.1 percent by 1988. That is equivalent to reducing spending by $165 billion per year in today's economy.
"By contrast, George W. Bush has raised domestic discretionary spending by 0.4 percent of GDP in just his first two years in office -- equivalent to $630 billion over the next decade if sustained. A key reason why Reagan made his effort is because he understood that the health of the U.S. economy was critical to national security and the defeat of Soviet communism. He knew that big government is a drag on the economy -- not just because of the high taxes that go with it, but because it pre-empts resources that the private sector can use more efficiently. Thus, an increase in government's share of GDP will eventually reduce growth even if taxes don't rise. In the end, Reagan won the Cold War not by defeating the Soviets militarily, but by showing them that we had economic resources they could never hope to match. They simply couldn't afford to keep up."
Dubyuh needs to borrow from the Gipper's playbook vis a vis Federal spending...MUD