Comments Posted By retire05
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 231 Comments
The Beckian Wing of Conservatism
I know my response is late on this thread, but since I was blocked (glitch? deliberate?) from this blog yesterday I could not respond.
Some here have asked "what is conservatism?" Here is my answer:
Conservatism values life, no matter the stage it's in.
Conservatism believes that the U.S. Constitution provides equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
Conservatism believes that the results of one's labor belongs to them, not to the collective.
Conservatism believes that the powers of government, as outlined in the Constitution, are few and enumerated.
Conservatism believes that charity should be voluntary, not forced by the IRS at the threat of imprisonment.
Conservatism is against the redistribution of wealth.That is just for starters.
Funnyman, yes, there are standards for conservatives. Just as there is a standard by which someone consideres himself/herself a liberal.
Now today, we have liberal pundits claiming that the Tea Parties, set for tomorrow, have all been organized by far right lunatics who are anti-Obama, anti-Democratic Party, anti-anything that doesn't move the nation left. Rants against anyone, such as Rich's Rants against Beck, Limbaugh or Hannity, plays right into that conspiracy theory.
Perhaps those on this forum who chose to disput me should read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the writings of the Founding Fathers to see how far we have come from that ideal they had in mind. And perhaps you should bookmark Thomas.loc.gov and read the bills that are being passed in our Congress and research how they will affect you. It would seem that some here think that if a bill is passed on requiring children to "volunteer" since they have no children, it will not affect them. Perhaps you think that since you did not get a bonus like the AIG employees, you will never be singled out for an oppressive tax.
I do have to ask if all these so-called "conservatives" who claim the GOP is dead and in the ashes, are not just voicing their wishful thinking. They complain that the Republicans have no leader, but never mention who the leader of the Democratic Party was in April, 2001 or even April, 2005. Did anyone at that time, right or left, think that a little known one term junion senator from Illinois would wind up being the "leader" of the DNC?
Leave Beck alone. Leave Hannity alone. We don't attack the left with such vitriol, why should we attact those on the right with such vitriol?
There is an excellent book "The Politics of Peace". Some of you should read it.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 14.04.2009 @ 08:33
bsjones (somehow your moniker seems quite appropriate) I also remember 8 years of Bush Lied, People Died, Preston Bush was a Nazi sympathizer, tax cuts only for the rich (one of the lies that stuck), war for oil, illegitimate president stealing the election from Al Gore, Bushitler, protesters carrying placards of a behead Bush, illegitimate war (for oil) and Krugman, who is hardly representative of the sane in this country, not bothering to call the left down on any of that. Hell, I am old enough, and I am sure you are, to have heard the rumors how FDR allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor because he wanted to go to war.
But not everyone agrees with Krugman, or Rick. And it seems there was a blog post on the very site that Rick contributes to, American Thinker, that warned that there were those that would come after Beck.
If you think Rick now represents conservatives, you, nor he, are a real conservative. And if you think that the 2,000 Tea Parties that are now scheduled for the 15th are all about Obama, someone needs to buy you a clue.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 13.04.2009 @ 08:02
STACEY McCAIN ON WHAT AILS THE RIGHT
busboy33, I'm doing great, thanks for asking.
I have been busy. Tea party planning (you know, the movement that Rick seems to ignore); the garden, flower beds and wondering why the hell global warming hasn't come to Texas. It was 28 degrees in Austin the other night. Coldest April night ever recorded in Austin. Colder in my area outside of Austin.
Oh, and working against Kay Bailey Hutchison in her bid for the Governor's Mansion (that some damn fool burned down).
Comment Posted By retire05 On 9.04.2009 @ 20:58
Chuck Tucson, luck has nothing to do with it. I do not believe in haphazzard luck; I believe you make your own. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
And no, the philosphy of the "big tent" where those of all views are welcome is not my ideal of a "conservative" tent. If you hold liberal socialist views, you do not belong under the tent with those that don't.
Perhaps you believe in the Kumbaya philosphy, sorry, I don't buy it. Since we were tribalist, beating our enemies with clubs, we have gathered in groups that thought alike and had the same goals and social standards.
And I don't hear a lot of grousing from the left wing of American politics how THEY should be inclusive. As a matter of fact, they are NOT inclusive. You either buy into the liberal view, or you will be driven from tribal lands. The left will eagerly grap their clubs, flog you in public, or apply Alinsky's Rule #5 with rapid speed.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 9.04.2009 @ 16:23
Russell Miller, I have no problem with anyone who is a (as you put it) a RINO. What I do have a problem with is those who would kill the messenger then pretend that their own message is the only true message.
Perhaps you should sharpen your reading comprehension skills. I clearly stated that all have a right to their their method of carrying their message, and as long as that message is consistantly conservative, it is not style that I have a problem with.
I place no litums test on Rick other than his own stance on issues, which I find consistantly socially liberal.
Why should I not remark on the fact that I am older, and hopefully wiser, than Rick? Does managing to stay alive for 69 years not grant me some consideration? Perhaps I should turn in my senior citizen card from Luby's.
Perhaps you should re-read what I posted. My problem is not that I consider Rick a social liberal, but that he seems to want to give credenced to his views by slamming the style of others. You cannot tout your belief in a "big tent" GOP and then put up a sign that says "Anyone who doesn't think as I do is a moron."
Comment Posted By retire05 On 9.04.2009 @ 13:43
Ad rem, yes.
But if you recall, I was banished from AJ's site because when he was promoting the Shamnesty Bill, and I argued his logic (which living in a border state knew he was wrong). He could not handle the truth of the issue. He became especially upset when I pointed out that he had complained how illegals broke the rental property rules in his Virgina town, but yet, seemed to think that we in Texas should accept it.
The final straw for AJ was went I took the time to publish the exact wording of the bill on his website that totally destroyed the claims about it he was making. With that, he banished me as if allowing me to comment on his site was some special privilege that my life would be worse without.
AJ, like so many who claim the mantilla of "conservatism" is a former Democrat. And while he claims to have left that party, that party is still a very active part of his being.
You see, Ad rem, rational thought always trumps emotion. And that is where so many go wrong.
Thanks for remembering me.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 9.04.2009 @ 12:56
Rick, you should add to your "must read" list Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. As history seems determined to repeat itself, Hazlitt's writing become even more important today.
Also, I have to wonder why you, who claims to be a "conservative" feels the need to constantly bash those who you seem to have a disagreement with: Limbaugh, Hannity and now, Glenn Beck. You have the freedom to not pay attention to what they say if you don't agree with them. Don't listen, don't watch.
What does it gain you to bash them? I can only think that you have adopted the "arrogance" that anyone who does not think exactly like you, must be wrong. Each one is entitled to their own style, and it enlightens just one person to what is going on with our government, then, no matter the style, or the method of the message, is wrong.
Beck dispelled the FEMA camp myth. Yet, you give him no credit for that. And yes, it is OK to change your mind as conditions change, but it is not OK to change your standards to go along with the herd. And if believing in the Constitution, and the timelessness of that document and how it is being thwarted by our current crop of "leaders" is being part of your "anti-intellectual strain", then count me among them. You seem to think that only the "intellectual strain" can grasp the writing of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin. That attitude, in and of itself, places you among those, so prominent on the left, that looks at those of us in fly over country as the great unwashed masses.
I used to enjoy your blog, but it seems you have jumped the vitriol shark. One has to wonder if it is not envy that drives you knowing that Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck have reached a level you seem not to be able to attain as a blogger.
There is room in this nation for all points of view; yours, Beck's, Limbaugh's and Hannity's. And I have to disagree with you that we have to work to going more left of center to be "inclusive". Now before you jump my bones for that comment, I realize you have never said that in those exact words.
We are conservatives. And as conservatives, we have certain standards and if we relinquish those standards, we are simply becoming that which we disagree with.
When our nation was being formed, a number of states reserved the right to seceed if, and when, the federal government failed to represent them. When the state constitution for Texas was adopted, and accepted by the federal government in order to bring Texas into the union, Texas reserved the right to secession. At no time was that repealed, and it was not changed to grant re-admission to the Union after the Civil War. The only requirement of change to the constitution of Texas was the removal of the right to own slaves.
There is a movement now, by at least 11 states, to reinforce their sovereignty rights. Those bills state that the state has right, not to seceed, but to refuse to abide by any law foisted on it by the federal government that does not meet Constitutional muster. It is about time.
You also seem to feel the need to constantly remind people that you lived in one of the reddest of red areas of the nation, as if that gives your opinion some legitimacy. It does not.
I fully expect you to come back with some profanity laced retort, as you seem wont to do on so many occassions. But I would point out that my twenty years on this earth longer than you has allowed me to see clearly the direction our nation is taking, and it is not toward Constitutionalism.
I enjoy your writings, but please, stop representing yourself as a conservative when you are clearly a social liberal.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 9.04.2009 @ 11:42
A TEPID BUT REALISTIC DEFENSE OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IN THE AIG MATTER
"While Henry M. Paulson, Jr., the current Treasury secretary, has taken a drubbing for the changeable nature of the government's efforts to bolster the financial industry -- somoe of which clearly contradicted each other -- Mr. Geithner has managed, for the most part, to remain unscathed. He's been wodely praised as a bright, articulat out-of-the-bos thinker who is a BAILOUT EXPERT, to the extent anyone can truely be an expert at fast-changing emergencies.
Behind the scenes, Mr. Geithner was the point person for weeks of sleep-deprived Bailout Weekends. It was Geithner, not Mr. Paulson, for example, who put together the original rescue plan for the American International Group."
NY Times 11/25/2008
Geithner designed the AIG bailout. It was his baby. He also help write TARP along with Patrick Kennedy. To say that he was not aware that AIG was going to continue to get their bonuses shows that Geithner is either lying, or he is stupid, or both. The first clue should have been Geithner saying he didn't pay his taxes because he used Turbo Tax.
And who has Geithner hired to help him and be his waterboy? None other than Lewis Alexander, chief financial economist for Citigroup, which has also had to have taxpayer bailout dollars. And Alexander doesn't have to be approved because he is working directly for Geithner.
Add Alexander to the long list of crooks and tax dodgers that are currenly on the new administrations staff. Just take a look at who is on Obama's Ecomonic Recovery Advisory Board: Penny Pritzer (who still owes the American people millions for her family's failed bank), Andrew Stern, president of the corrupt SEIU and Jeffrey Immelt, who has driven GE into the ground and violated sanctions our nation placed on doing business with Iran. But then, with GE's new company, Greenhouse Gas Services,that will deal in cap and trade (carbon credit scam), GE, and Immelt, stand to profits handsomely.
Pay to play is alive and well in D.C. and looks like it has gotten a shot of steroids.
Geithner needs to go. He brings nothing to the table in a time when the market is looking to the White House to instill confidence. And what does Obama do while Rome is burning? He leaves D.C. to go play his fiddle on Jay Leno.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 19.03.2009 @ 16:58
Sorry, since I can't edit my last post, please, replace Rich with Rick.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 3.03.2009 @ 22:05
If I were to ever visit this blog and Rich had one descent thing to say about Rush Limbaugh, I think I would collapse from shock. This constant basing on a man who has been the voice for conservatism for 20 years is beginning to look more like sour grapes than rational thought. Envy comes in all kinds of packages.
Saying Rush "status" is a millstone around conservatives necks. What the hell does that mean? Does it mean that if Rich had a talk show with the number of listeners that Rush commands, Rick would be the new "millstone" since not all conservatives agree with Rick?
Conservatism needs both Rush and Newt, the same way that we needed Patton and McCarthur. Both have a purpose and both contribute to the conservative movement.
Basically, Rick has begun to sound no more than someone who had eaten one too many sour grapes.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 3.03.2009 @ 22:04
