Posted on 06/29/2013 12:48:40 PM PDT by Finny
Thanks, Norm. I notice that none of the “Third parties are stupid!” folks have even the remotest answer or viable option for the last sentence of my post. Not a single one even addresses the reality.
Got one?
RE my post 82 above, asking what your plan is if the 2016 Republican presidential candidate offers the same (lack of) alternative as did Romney and McCain — what is your plan for holding back progressivism/communism/liberalism/socialism/Marxism/facism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it? Other than whining that the growing number of Republicans who refuse to vote as they once did for a liberal are “throwing a temper tantrum”?
Folks who say outright that they're neither right nor left, folks who describe themselves as "independent," use the word LIBERAL whether you or I think it's the "correct" word or not. THEIR message is very clear to ME, and if I use the word "liberal" instead of "leftist," I know that MY message will be very clear to them.
The word "gender" instead of the word "sex" is insidiously deceitful, techically incorrect within the original use of the word (but because language is dynamic, most dictonaries now have revised the meaning of "gender" to include "sex"). I absolutely hate hearing or seeing people use the word "gender" to describe a person's sex.
"Gender" is a grammatical term having to do with language, and THEREFORE when it is substituted to describe the actual biological sex of a person, it subtly reduces the profound animal, physical sexual nature of being male versus being female -- and REDUCES it to nothing more than a gramatical term for human beings, the same as "el vestido" (the Spanish noun for a woman's dress) is masculine in gender (the actual correct use of the word "gender") and "la camisa" (the Spanish noun for a man's shirt) is feminine in gender. Gender and sex are ENTIRELY separate.
Insisting (which would be futile) that people stop using the word "gender" for the word "sex" in the name of making the message clearer, would only clutter up the message.
Just sayin'.
Orwell predicted today's confusion of words: “liberals” who hate freedom, “feminists” who hate femininity, “public interest” which discounts individual interest in favor of government interest. Today's diluting and destroying the meaning of important words and concepts are tomorrow's effective means of enslaving.
>>So, Bryan, if the 2016 Republican nominee is — as he very will probably be — cut from the same cloth as McCain and Romney, what is your plan for helping conservatism and the cause of limted government?
>>Got one?
I had the same plan as I had in 2012, but few Freepers shared it. Campaign for the most-conservative person running in the GOP primary. Don’t go looking for that one little thing that proves that he (or she) is not pure enough. Don’t waste time on people who aren’t in the race. Don’t let the media, Hollywood, or the northern elite decide our candidate. And, most importantly, if another conservative (but not necessarily perfect) candidate begins to beat mine, don’t attack them or work to force them out.
Aside from that, I would encourage all of our candidates to find ways to attract the working class Democrats to our side instead of supporting bankers and CEOs and telling everyone else that they just need to be poor so the “producers” can flourish even more. Nothing hurts the Right more than calling a CEO a “producer” and a factory worker a “parasite” as people have done here on FR.
Now, is your plan still just “split the vote and pray for a miracle”?
>>RE my post 82 above, asking what your plan is if the 2016 Republican presidential candidate offers the same (lack of) alternative as did Romney and McCain — what is your plan for holding back progressivism/communism/liberalism/socialism/Marxism/facism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it? Other than whining that the growing number of Republicans who refuse to vote as they once did for a liberal are “throwing a temper tantrum”?
If that’s who gets through the primary process because we’ve destroyed all the conservatives because none of them are perfect enough, then we get what we deserve—just as we did in 2012.
As for holding back progressivism, etc, that is a lost cause. There is too much automation in the world to employ everyone at a living wage. How many people will you starve? Or do all workers have to go to part-time so that all can work a little and barely survive? Is that your vision of the future? Because we shall certainly not ever again see a time where the factories, farms, and mines are full of hard-working men earning a decent wage.
That’s not whining. That’s thinking. It would do you good to learn to think things through to the end.
Do you think the Republican Revolution would have happened if HW had been re-elected or if Dole had won?
Do you think the Republican Revolution would have happened if Clinton had the backing of the majority of voters instead of a piss-poor 43% plurality (where a full 57 percent of the vote was OPPOSED to him)?
I got news for you, Boo. Perot didn't mean to, but he HELPED conservatism by splitting the vote between the liberal Democrat and the liberal Republican presidential candidates.
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.