I don't want weak conservatives

Posted by Slick 10 years, 10 months ago to Politics
29 comments | Share | Flag

By the time I was born in 1987, Britain was beginning to raise the lion’s roar once more. Margaret Thatcher was in power, and many of the failing socialized industries had been privatized to great success. For eighteen golden years Britain was swinging back with a fury. The Thatcher and Major conservative governments had well and truly put Britain back on track, and had its finances well in order.
SOURCE URL: http://abundanttruth.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/i-dont-want-weak-conservatives/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by jimslag 10 years, 10 months ago
    Hello Slick, great article. I really enjoyed reading about your past and dealing with the socialistic dealings in Great Britain. Thank you for giving us you perspective on what is happening here and thank you for becoming a naturalized American, but that may be a mistake on your part. Yes, you have the rights of a citizen but now you are going to be taxed no matter where you go or where you work. Yes, the IRS taxes you no matter what, anywhere in the world. Welcome to America, the land of debtors, they have to pay for it somehow and have no problem extracting their pound of flesh from US Citizens. For my part, I was young and idealistic in America, I even did my years in the military, waving the US Flag all over the world. I still love my country, just not my government.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
      Thank you. I recognize the entrapment's of becoming a citizen of the US in the 21st Century, but I also recognize the opportunities that are still available here. You love your country but not your government, good, that is healthy, it's the kind of statement the founding fathers would be proud of.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by XenokRoy 10 years, 10 months ago
    Thanks for the article it was a good read.

    I do not want conservatives at all. They tend to want to tell people if they can get an abortion or not, want to have a huge military, want to enforce Christianity on everyone else.... Conservatives have not been about small government in the US since the mid to late nineties, that is why the fascism has started to move at a much faster pace.

    With a "conservative" controlled house, senate and executive branch we got the Patriot Act so that the feds can record whatever conversation they feel like. We also were blessed with "no child left behind" a huge step forward to indoctrinating our kids. These were not weak conservatives; enemies to small government and freedom would be a better way of stating it.

    To be a weak conservative would indicate a weak friend to small government. Our "conservatives" are simply wolves in sheep's clothing who love socialism only slightly less than the liberals love fascism. We have for many years had the choice of a fascist or a socialist for president.

    The only thing worse than not showing up to fight is to show up make a fight and loose it. That empowers your opponent in a way that just not showing up cannot compare. The issue is we have people showing up for our team that are really on the other side. A few people that are only mediocre at there jobs but actually were for small government would give people like Mike Lee some followers to lead. He needs em, Ron Paul needs them. It would be even better to get them people like themselves that will fight the fight but the numbers wont add up if that's all we give them, there just are not enough people like them that run for office.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
      Yes. We also want to tell people if they can hire an assassin or not. We're kind of strict about that whole "murdering people" thing.

      I don't want a huge military to enforce Christianity on anybody (aren't Moslems rather... conservative?). I want a huge military to enforce the will of the United States on anyone who might pose a threat.

      ---
      "But, continued the alien, "you are not using - that?"
      "Not exactly," said Barden.
      "No, for that means death."
      "We were going to try it out," was Barden's calm thought.
      "On-NO!" came the terrified reply.
      "Well,", returned Barden, we're never pleased with red-hots who shoot at us!"
      "But an entire system?" came the pleading exclamation.
      "Filled with people of the same ilk," returned Barden, unimpressed.
      "But even warfare must not be annihilation," objected the alien. "For of what value is a dead enemy?"
      "They are no longer any bother," Barden grunted. "We dislike being bothered, and our will happens to be that we want to go whereever we choose at any time we please. A favorable attitude upon the part of any other culture is one that permits us our will. A dead culture will never obstruct us, for one thing. It will never revert to its original attitude of belligerency, for the second thing. And for the third thing, alien, with the interstellar drive we have, we can find those cultures in the galaxy which see exactly as we do; therefore it is to our advantage to eliminate any malcontents right now."
      - "The Catspaw", by George O. Smith
      ------
      Note that they don't, in fact, wipe out the alien species in question.
      Note also that, while that little scene parallels my general foreign policy position, nowhere did "Christianity" enter into it. Stop fearing Christians; they're dying to keep you safe from Islam.

      You are mistaken. We have not had a conservative controlled house, senate and executive for at least 20 years. The Bushes are not conservatives, they are progressives in Republican clothing. Boehner and the Republicans currently controlling the House are not conservatives, and have made their hostility toward conservatives clear.
      The reason we threw the Republicans out in 2006, and it was conservatives who were behind it, was because they weren't, in fact, acting like conservatives.

      The liberals, in fact, do love fascism; that's why they've promoted so much of it since they got Obama in the WH.
      The handful of conservatives in the House have done a Homeric job of fighting the battle, but they must fight both the progressive Democrats and the progressive Republicans.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by XenokRoy 10 years, 10 months ago
        I think you miss my point, I am not disagreeing with you. I was stating that conservative does not mean what it use to. The meaning has changed. In most peoples minds Bush is conservative, or a weak conservative. He is in fact, as I stated a socialist, and the left is fascist.

        Its there in my post, liberal is fascism and conservative is socialism. When people think conservatives today stand for small government I think they are using the wrong words because I do not want another Bush (or anyone like him) as president. He is a big government conservative just like Obama is a big government Liberal.

        My point was and still is that the conservative label is no longer equated with small government and we need to change the language so people know what we mean. I am pro small government, not a conservative. .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
      This is an exchange I find interesting. Who wants to reduce your Freedom more Christian conservatives or rinos. Xenonk you make a great point about Patriot Act. But on most of your other examples (beside abortion) I disagree that true Conservatives were behind those policies. In fact no child left behind, Medicare part b and sarbanes Oxley, any tax increases, etc were vehemently opposed by Conservatives. Look at the senators and reps who are considered the most conservative. See their voting record. Its chock full of nays. How exhausting it must be for bill after bill after bill just voting. "Nay " Gods bless em
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by XenokRoy 10 years, 10 months ago
        You actually make my point for me. You had to qualify conservatives with "true conservatives." If we have to use terms like "strong conservatives" or "true conservatives" the liberals have all ready won. We must be able to state who and what we are clearly to others. The term conservative may mean small government to me and you, but to so many out there its no different from liberal. Both simply want larger government, more money for themselves and there constituents. Stating "I do not want a weak conservative" should be I want a strong small government Representative or congressmen.

        We must take an approach that makes what we are looking for clear and concise. The liberals like the bush family have taken the term conservative and turned it into a term which means nothing more than a different form of liberal. Tea Party, Constitutionalists or Libertarian are terms that I know who they are when they say they are one of these. Conservative needs a qualifier, a description to know if you are talking small government or big government.

        As Wilson put it at a American Communist Association convention, not word for word as I cant remember the exact word usage, control the language and you have all ready won the fight.

        We often use terms that have many meanings, generalizing. that plays to there advantage. Our case is made best when its concrete and clear. Theirs is best in a fog of unreality and emotion. When we use the term conservative rather than small government we allow them to define what we mean rather than make it clear.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 10 months ago
    Even a weak conservative is better than a powerful liberal. Or a weak liberal. Or any kind of liberal. Even a weak conservative has at least one foot on the right path.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Eyecu2 10 years, 10 months ago
      While I agree with you in principal. I understand his position that he wants to vote his mind and wants STRONG conservatives to vote for. I myself would prefer to vote for either Rand or Ron Paul over any of the other candidates in recent elections but found myself instead voting for candidates who I hoped could win and maybe go down the path to hell a little slower than the ones that actually won and are moving full speed ahead.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
        When you have 10% of the voting block voting on issue based candidates, whomever wins the election must address that 10%. case in point: Ross Perot. This can also be bad-the socialist party in the 20's and early 30's. Both Bushs caused us a world of hurt.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago
      I think it's important that we won't accept weak conservatives. We can only do that individually with our votes. I couldn't vote for McCain or Romney. They were fools and dangerous.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by guidvce 10 years, 10 months ago
    Thank you for a well-written and thought provoking article. From your perspective, having come from a socialist country, it sheds new light on what is going on in this country. Not that I didn't know what was happening here, it just illuminated it more.
    Hopefully, there are enough folks who will read the article and take heed of what could happen here.
    If we let it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 10 years, 10 months ago
    That quote in the top from Francisco's words hangs in my office. I caught it the first time I read it and have shared it with many. You can see their mouths fall open when they read it. I say, "That's right. Published in 1957."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo