AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Yes, but without your put-downs/insults of what we know and don't know. LOL

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Mark R. Levin in his book, Liberty and Tyranny, page 4, wrote:

The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual’s imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocquerville described as a soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). As the word liberal is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.

A majority of contemporary Democrats and a minority of contemporary Republicans are Statists.

Obama is a Statist.

Mark R. Levin in his book, Liberty and Tyranny, page 4, wrote:

The Founders understood that the greatest threat to liberty is an all powerful central government, where the few dictate to the many. They also knew that the rule of the mob would lead to anarchy and, in the end, despotism.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

To me, raising issues about Obama's citizenship is in the same vein as suggesting Obama will cause our grandchildren to live under sharia law.

I agreed with your reasoning and attempted to thumb up your post, but was redirected to the front page--twice. Why is that? Is there a new rule on A2K that disallows a member to agree with wandeljw? Or is the A2K wiring screwed up?

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

There could have been a coincidence in timing, Debra. When you voted thumbs up someone else may have been voting thumbs down. If this happened, the system would also not let you try to vote a second time.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Nobody said 'Obama will cause our grandchildren to live under sharia law' no matter how much the liberal numbnuts have tried to claim that such was the issue.

Both history and truth are elusive concepts for conservatives, especially for Foxfyre who posts on this board from her location in the twilight zone.

Foxfyre introduced Sowell's column by alleging that Sowell's past predictions have come true, thus his predictions of the future will likely come true, ALSO. In the posted column, the great nonpartisan soothsayer, Thomas Sowell, predicted that Iran would nuke our country, that our country would surrender to Iran, and that our granddaughters would have to live under sharia law if the allegedly cowardly librultard demoncrats headed by that false messiah Obama continued to control the federal government.

Thus, Foxfyre's allegation that nobody said that Obama will cause our grandchildren to live under sharia law is FALSE. Sowell said it, and Foxfyre herself said Sowell's prediction of future doom would likely come true.

Even though Foxfyre demanded that we all address what Sowell actually said, Foxfyre admitted that if Sowell actually believed what he actually wrote, he would be looney tunes. Therefore, Foxfyre argued that her idol, the great nonpartisan soothsayer Thomas Sowell, was using looney tune words to paint a metaphorical illustration of such complexity that only she and Sowell, as the smartest people in the whole world, could possibly understand. Accordingly, the delusional Foxfyre irrationally rejected all arguments that Sowell's column was not the intellectually complex masterpiece she claimed it to be, but rather fear-mongering propaganda.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

There must be a secret message between the lines that Sowell writes, but only Foxie can read and understand. The rest of the whole English speaking peoples misinterprets "their" style of writing the English language - even though they seem to contradict each other all the time.

They don't need to clarify their writing as predictions, metaphorical or even a (conservative) myth; it's all there for people to "see."

Our comprehension just doesn't agree with theirs'.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

HOW TO BEGIN FIXING OUR GOVERNMENT
The Constitution is a contract between the federal government, the states, and the people. That contract is voided when the federal government repeatedly and continually violates that contract.

The Constitution requires that all taxes on each and every dollar of income be uniform. Also the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to transfer tax revenue to individuals or groups of individuals that are not employees of the federal government.

Contemporary liberals work to deprive others of their fundamental rights to that which they have earned. Millions of contemporary conservatives have found better jobs and benefits by working for a better life for themselves rather than by working to take for themselves that which others have earned.

Contemporary conservatives must recognize these contemporary realities and work to change them, or lose their liberty.

Their first goal must be accomplishing reform of the current federal tax system to conform to that which is lawful under the USA Constitution. The USA Constitution requires that all taxes be uniform throughout the USA, not uniformly non-uniform. A flat tax, not a graduated or progressive tax on gross income, is what is required by "the supreme law of the land."

Their second goal must be accomplishing reform of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government. These three branches of the federal government must be compelled to exercise only those powers granted them by the USA Constitution. In particular, they must be prevented from giving away or authorizing the giveaway of federal tax revenues to individual Americans and to groups of Americans.

A first step in accomplishing both goals is for the legislature and governor in one or more states of the United States to decide to secede from the United States, until the federal government stops failing to obey the Constitution and keep its constitutional agreement to "support this Constitution."

Of course, many will correctly observe that it is unconstitutional for a state to secede from the United States. However, it is also unconstitutional for the federal government to exercise powers not explicitly granted it in the Constitution. Clearly, under conditions where the federal government is repeatedly violating the Constitution--its contract with the states--the federal government forfeits its power to deny the states and their people their right to secede to escape abuse of their citizens by the federal government.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Playing a bit of devil's advocate here for a moment--or maybe not--if a state, say Texas or New Mexico, should advise the President that they are seceding from the Union on the grounds that you just laid out here, and advised that they were herewith no longer submitting taxes to Washington or otherwise handing over any resources, what would the response of the U.S. government be?

Noting that among many other considerations, New Mexico has three heavily fortified military bases and we are assuming that the Armed Forces on those bases and the National Guard would throw in with the New Mexicans. We also have the White Sands missile proving grounds and two National labs with highly sensitive research and data in process.

Among many other considerations, Texas has a substantial chunk of the nation's oil reserves, the lion's share of its refining capacity, NASA, and a number of military bases. And it has an even stronger position than New Mexico as it is one state in the union that is essentially self sufficient in being able to supply virtually all its needs.

What would President Obama do?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Is there something similar to the Alaska Independence Party in NM? Or Texas?

Since the American Revolution was in fact a secession from the United Kingdom, it certainly might well be one of the MACs values to consider such.

I've no idea how such could and would be handled in modern USA.
In Europe, we call those who try it terrorists (see Spain/France/the UK) or try to give those regions more independence (but the latter would apply to US-states).

On the other hand, on the Balkan and in the former USSR such just happened a few years ago, happens even today.

Interesting scenario what MACs create.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

There must be a secret message between the lines that Sowell writes, but only Foxie can read and understand. The rest of the whole English speaking peoples misinterprets "their" style of writing the English language - even though they seem to contradict each other all the time.

They don't need to clarify their writing as predictions, metaphorical or even a (conservative) myth; it's all there for people to "see."

Our comprehension just doesn't agree with theirs'.

The problem with reading comprehension on this thread is that Foxfyre can't take off her conservative blinders or acknowledge her own fallibility.

She alleges that she emailed Sowell to specifically ask him about his appeal to the extremes: Gee, isn't it a little extreme to predict, if the conservatives don't get their **** together and oust the democrats, that a nuclear Iran will nuke our country, that two nukes will be enough to make the cowardly democrats surrender, and that our granddaughters will be forced to live under sharia law?

According to Foxfyre, Sowell responded that his prediction was extreme indeed, but he intended it to be extreme because he believes it could actually happen. After all, he explained to her, history has taught us that horrible things have happened, e.g., France surrendered to Germany causing the French Jewish citizenry to be shipped to extermination camps. The French people may not have thought that possible, but it happened! Thus, even though some people think it absurd that our granddaughters might be forced to live under sharia law if Obama remains in power, Sowell himself believes this worst case scenario is probable. He specifically told Foxfyre that he actually meant what he said, even though it was extreme to say it.

NOT believing that Sowell actually meant what he said--even when Sowell himself allegedly told her in an email that he actually DID mean what he said--Foxfyre conjured up an alternative explanation: The great Sowell didn't really mean what he actually said, he was merely using a "metaphorical illustration" to convey some other message that only Foxfyre with her superior intellect and supernatural powers could divine by reading between the lines and pulling an unconscious message from the deep recesses of Sowell's brain that Sowell himself didn't even know he was sending.

It is quite amusing to watch Foxfyre navigate through a universe where none of the rules of logic or reason apply to what she posts--while she simultaneously portrays herself to be the smartest person ever to live on the planet--and how frustrating it is for someone of her superior intellect to deal with the rest of humanity that lacks understanding and the ability to think critically. (Cue music from the Twilight Zone.)

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Is there a new rule on A2K that disallows a member to agree with wandeljw?

It's not a rule, it's just a really good idea.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
Is there a new rule on A2K that disallows a member to agree with wandeljw?

It's not a rule, it's just a really good idea.

Thanks. (You probably wouldn't say that if I was a Cubs fan.) Smile

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

... if a state, say Texas or New Mexico, should advise the President that they are seceding from the Union on the grounds that you just laid out here, and advised that they were herewith no longer submitting taxes to Washington or otherwise handing over any resources, what would the response of the U.S. government be?
... What would President Obama do?

(1) Negotiate!
(2) Failing in that, take the case to SP (i.e., Supreme Court) to determine the legality of secession under the conditions alleged.
(3) Threaten to arrest the perpetrators (i.e., the governors and/or those members of the state legislatures who declared they were seceding), IF SP decides against the seceding states--SP will probably decide against the seceding states.
(4) Back off when the Texan and New Mexican members--probably other members as well--of the federal military/FBI refuse to invade the seceding states to arrest the perpetrators.
(5) Try to convince the voters in the seceding states to impeach their perpetrators.
(6) Failing that, try to convince the voters in the USA that Obama and his cohorts have not violated the USA Constitution as amended.
(7) Failing that, oppose the efforts of the House to impeach Obama.
(8) Failing that, oppose the efforts of the Senate to remove Obama.
(9) Failing that, Obama will return to Chicago to run for the Senate and probably lose.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
Is there a new rule on A2K that disallows a member to agree with wandeljw?

It's not a rule, it's just a really good idea.

Well, I tried several times to give wandeljw a thumbs up, but I kept getting bumped to the front page. Maybe I just used up my allotted number of thumbs up, but I previously thought that I had an unlimited supply. Perhaps I lack understanding and critical thinking skills. Our infallible thread leader has said so many times, therefore it must be true.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

There could have been a coincidence in timing, Debra. When you voted thumbs up someone else may have been voting thumbs down. If this happened, the system would also not let you try to vote a second time.

I cannot "think" of any reason why someone would have thumbed your post down at the same time I was thumbing it up. Perhaps the conservatives on this thread could shed some light on this possible coincidence. I'm in the mood for another metaphorical illustration demonstrative of complex intellectualism.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

I dunno, Debra -- Sowell does have his moments as a prophet. For example, there's an article from the distant past titled The Do Something War, in which he chastises in no uncertain terms the administration of the time for planning to go to war in Iraq. I dug out an excerpt for ya. Here is the core of Sowell's objection to the Iraq war:

Thomas Sowell wrote:

George Bush has failed to tell us what his "exit strategy" is. When will we stop the war and go home? When Saddam Hussein agrees to unlimited U.N. inspection? What if he never agrees? Will we keep bombing the Iraqis forever?

Saddam Hussein doesn't care how many Iraqis we kill. But the American public will, especially when the dead Iraqi women and children are televised in Baghdad and brought into every American home at dinner time. Add to that the dead Americans coming home in body bags and you do not have the conditions needed for lasting public support for extended military action.

In the 1991 Gulf War, we had clear objectives and the ability to win those objectives in short order. The objective was to drive the Iraqi army out of Kuwait and destroy its equipment. When that was done, we could declare victory and go home.

The Bush administration shows its usual pattern of playing everything politically by ear on a day-to-day basis. But, in war, such short-sightedness has often been the road to long-run tragedy.

Source

Of course, I had to do one minor edit to make Sowell sound that good: I had to replace "Clinton" and "Bill Clinton" with "Bush" and "George Bush". But with this teeny little qualification, you can't deny that Sowell is coming across as a genuine prophet here.

3 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
Is there a new rule on A2K that disallows a member to agree with wandeljw?

It's not a rule, it's just a really good idea.

Thanks. (You probably wouldn't say that if I was a Cubs fan.)

Yet another good cause for disagreement.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Sowell said:

Quote:

Add to that the dead Americans coming home in body bags and you do not have the conditions needed for lasting public support for extended military action.

We all know Bush didn't allow flag-draped caskets to be shown to the public, because he understood the support for the war would be short. It's now gone on for six years, and we're still "paying" the price.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Of course, I had to do one minor edit to make Sowell sound that good: I had to replace "Clinton" and "Bill Clinton" with "Bush" and "George Bush". But with this teeny little qualification, you can't deny that Sowell is coming across as a genuine prophet here.

Eerily prescient.*

*as amended

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That's right, cicerone imposter: Conservatives are real good about learning the lessons of history. Americans don't like it when they see their children come home in body bags -- so hide the body bags. Americans also don't like it when they see cell phone pictures of American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners , so -- no more cell phone pictures!

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know