Posted on 02/22/2016 4:05:20 AM PST by 20yearsofinternet
Look at golf. How long was it that Augusta National had no women members and still had a proud tradition of hosting the Masters? It was 2012 when they signed up Condi Rice. That was a good thing and long overdue. They had just started admitting black members beginning in 1991! How ridiculous and discriminatory. How did it take that long?
And now, they can't host a tournament on property owned by Trump? Where is the principal with this? Illegal aliens? They are losing their minds. They lost their PGA President because he said Ian Poulter was crying like a girl. Had to eject him.
The problem is that they are inviting Politics into the sport and with it the "Political Correctness" with it. What needs invited are non-political ethics, not Political Correctness. Are we going to stop having baseball games in "Bush" stadiums? Where does this madness stop? Oh yeah, what about the poor CEO in Silicon Valley who got outed that he gave to Prop. 8? What are we allowing Political Correctness to do in this country, in Sport, in our Boardrooms, etc?
It is going to get worse if we in the vast vast vast middle continue to allow it, you will see the "Climate Deniers" soon having to resign, and I guess Golf Properties will have to go on the record about their view in order to host tournaments.
Note that political correctness never works for the conservative side of things. That ought to inform us of the method at work.
I am just wondering. How many illegal aliens are playing on the PGA tour as Americans? Why not allow them on, or at least celebrate their presence by letting them Caddy openly. Or get the good paying jobs putting up the venues. Put on TV proudly about how they are fragrantly violating the law by hiring them. You know, let them come out of the shadows.
Sheesh, I have to get off rant mode today, the blood is boiling.
You don’t win elections preaching to the choir loft.
I used to think that by staying home I forfeited my right to complain about the government. But if the government I complain about is the government I held my nose and voted for then what right do I have to complain under those circumstances either? So I'll stay home...but when Trump shows his moderate colors I still plan to complain about him.
You view it as you wish. I prefer to think about it as principle over surrender.
There is only one box that will fix what is broke with America.
America needs weeding like a garden with a sharp hoe to let it flourish again.
It is oh so evident by what is supported today by "conservatives" ; partial birth abortion, free hand outs, socialized medicine, voter fraud.
Whether he wins or not, does Trump stand with “us”?
If the nominee is Rubio, Kasich or the Like, I will stay home, done my duty and pulled the lever enough times for folks who just sold out my nation, will not be a willing accomplice again.
Cruz, I am still up in the air on whether I will sit out or not. While I like most of what he says, He’s taking money from the same folks as all the establishment guys, so I am dubious he will truly do much different where it really matters, and his stand on H1B shows me he really doesn’t get it and is captive to the same money men.
Trump I will show up and vote for yes.
To cancel out someone who is voting against your principles?
I guess the argument boils down to these few questions:
-PJ
Both Trump and Hiiary are both liberals. I will likely support the most conservative 3rd party candidate.
There is a third party and they are the most conservative ! Who?
Nominees have not been chosen, but the Constitution Party's choice is a safe bet that choice will be more conservative than Trump.
In 2012, the Libertarian nominee was even more conservative than Romney, so we will see.
Non Sequitur: "BusCh" (as in Annheuser Busch)
~~~~
(I'm sure you knew that -- but I now have serious doubts about the intellect and education of many FReepers.)
No, I was talking about the stadium project that involved GW Bush. I know his interests were sold, but that was after being governor. We just don’t need to look into the bowels of properties and projects and politicize it like they are doing in the PGA with Trump’s properties. It is a bad fit which denies playing on some of the best courses in the world. Do you know they wound up cancelling the Grand Slam of Golf last year because they couldn’t find a suitable venue in time to host the event after so quickly caving in to the “no way we can have it at a Trump property” crowd?
Anyway, here is the history behind the GW deal, which became an issue in this campaign regarding eminent domain: http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html
...and, while we're throwing away principles, let's just give up on that FR "single issue" called, Constitutional Conservatism" while we're at it... </SARCASM>
How about learn how the game is played? Since when did "Constitutional Conservatism" mean suspend the Constitutional processes in order to deny Obama his due process in replacing Scalia? That in the truest sense is not "Constitutional Conservatism" in my opinion. I get roasted for being a "Constitutional Conservatism" in reminding folks that it is, after all, "Constitutional Conservatism" that gives Obama AT THIS JUNCTURE the right to place someone in nomination, and the responsibility of the Senate to consider them. That is the way it is supposed to work.
But more and more, the way I see "Constitutional Conservatism" expressed is suspend it all, put in what we want, and then press the start button again. Lose, lose, lose. We are where we are "Constitutionally", and we are where we are by the votes of a Constitutional Republic. We may not like what we got, but we sure haven't figured out how to change the vector, much less the getting any kind of magnitude on progress towards moving things the other direction.
Winning is not losing on principle. There are times for that in private life and other issues where losing IS winning, but not in Politics AT THIS TIME and not in the current state of our Constitutional Republic.
(Highlight between the ""s...)
I can't think of either in terms of "better". I honestly can't say which one is worse. They are different flavors of statists.
And yet ‘we’ were expected to vote for whatever left wing ‘republican’ wins the nomination when ‘they’ got ‘their’ candidate.
As I predicted early on. Trump will be ‘Schundlered’ if he gets the nomination. They would rather Hillary or Sanders than someone who might discover all the nasty corruption THEY’ve been up to for the past quarter century (at the very least).
I’m for Cruz,. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.