Yeah, that about sums it up

Go down

Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by swiftfoxmark2 on Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:58 am


_________________
swiftfoxmark2
swiftfoxmark2

Posts : 437
Pundit Level : 1365
Poster Popularity : 2
Join date : 2009-08-29
Age : 37
Location : A leaf in the wind

http://swiftfoxmark2.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/swiftfoxmark2/

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by Bladerunner on Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:23 pm

Your obsession with the GOP is breathtaking.
Bladerunner
Bladerunner

Posts : 91
Pundit Level : 198
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2010-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by Doc Trock on Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:07 pm

Bladerunner wrote:Your obsession with the GOP is breathtaking.

In Swifty's defense, the GOP is one half of the political discussion in the United State. Statistically speaking, it is very likely that a person interested in politics is going to be obsessed with one party or the other.

None of us are surprised by the democrats. We expect them to act and govern like idiots....and they deliver in spades!

However, with republicans it's another matter. They promise to do things and then once elected go out and do exactly the opposite of what they promised. It's easy to obsess over that.

The GOP agenda has been textbook fascism. There can be no debate over that....it's a fact.
Doc Trock
Doc Trock

Posts : 206
Pundit Level : 322
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2010-07-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by Bladerunner on Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:15 am



Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
Bladerunner
Bladerunner

Posts : 91
Pundit Level : 198
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2010-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by Bladerunner on Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:34 am

And, gosh, this from a Republican. How silly of me to believe there might be some principled men on the right side of the politically obssessed.

Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) speech to student body of Hillsdale College, Sept. 20, 2010.
The Presidency and the Constitution.

THE PRESIDENCY is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the American government. More often than not, for good or for ill, it sets the tone for the other branches and spurs the expectations of the people. Its powers are vast and consequential, its requirements impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and insistent attention to its purpose as set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

Isn’t it amazing, given the great and momentous nature of the office, that those who seek it seldom pause to consider what they are seeking? Rather, unconstrained by principle or reflection, there is a mad rush toward something that, once its powers are seized, the new president can wield as an instrument with which to transform the nation and the people according to his highest aspirations.

But, other than in a crisis of the house divided, the presidency is neither fit nor intended to be such an instrument. When it is made that, the country sustains a wound, and cries out justly and indignantly. And what the nation says is the theme of this address. What it says—informed by its long history, impelled by the laws of nature and nature’s God—is that we as a people are not to be ruled and not to be commanded. It says that the president should never forget this; that he has not risen above us, but is merely one of us, chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us, but to bear the weight of decision and to carry out faithfully the design laid down in the Constitution in accordance with the Declaration of Independence.

* * *

The presidency must adhere to its definition as expressed in the Constitution, and to conduct defined over time and by tradition. While the powers of the office have enlarged, along with those of the legislature and the judiciary, the framework of the government was intended to restrict abuses common to classical empires and to the regal states of the 18th century.

Without proper adherence to the role contemplated in the Constitution for the presidency, the checks and balances in the constitutional plan become weakened. This has been most obvious in recent years when the three branches of government have been subject to the tutelage of a single party. Under either party, presidents have often forgotten that they are intended to restrain the Congress at times, and that the Congress is independent of their desires. And thus fused in unholy unity, the political class has raged forward in a drunken expansion of powers and prerogatives, mistakenly assuming that to exercise power is by default to do good.

Even the simplest among us knows that this is not so. Power is an instrument of fatal consequence. It is confined no more readily than quicksilver, and escapes good intentions as easily as air flows through mesh. Therefore, those who are entrusted with it must educate themselves in self-restraint. A republic is about limitation, and for good reason, because we are mortal and our actions are imperfect.

The tragedy of presidential decision is that even with the best choice, some, perhaps many, will be left behind, and some, perhaps many, may die. Because of this, a true statesman lives continuously with what Churchill called “stress of soul.” He may give to Paul, but only because he robs Peter. And that is why you must always be wary of a president who seems to float upon his own greatness. For all greatness is tempered by mortality, every soul is equal, and distinctions among men cannot be owned; they are on loan from God, who takes them back and evens accounts at the end.

It is a tragedy indeed that new generations taking office attribute failures in governance to insufficient power, and seek more of it. In the judiciary, this has seldom been better expressed than by Justice Thurgood Marshall, who said: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” In the Congress, it presents itself in massive legislation, acts and codes thousands of pages long and so monstrously over-complicated that no human being can read through them—much less understand them, much less apply them justly to a people that increasingly feel like they are no longer being asked, but rather told. Our nation finds itself in the position of a dog whose duty it is not to ask why—because the “why” is too elevated for his nature—but simply to obey.

America is not a dog, and does not require a “because-I-said-so” jurisprudence; or legislators who knit laws of such insulting complexity that they are heavier than chains; or a president who acts like, speaks like, and is received as a king.

The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us; we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law, and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others. It is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from them, and to him and the acolytes of his choosing.

Is my characterization of unprecedented presumption incorrect? Listen to the words of the leader of President Obama’s transition team and perhaps his next chief-of-staff: “It’s important that President-Elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.” Or, more recently, the latest presidential appointment to avoid confirmation by the Senate—the new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—who wrote last Friday: “President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again.”

“Take power. . .rule. . .leveling.” Though it is the model now, this has never been and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the American president. No one can say this too strongly, and no one can say it enough until it is remedied. We are not subjects; we are citizens. We fought a war so that we do not have to treat even kings like kings, and—if I may remind you—we won that war. Since then, the principle of royalty has, in this country, been inoperative. Who is better suited or more required to exemplify this conviction, in word and deed, than the President of the United States?

* * *

The powers of the presidency are extraordinary and necessarily great, and great presidents treat them sparingly. For example, it is not the president’s job to manipulate the nation’s youth for the sake of his agenda or his party. They are a potent political force when massed by the social network to which they are permanently attached. But if the president has their true interests at heart he will neither flatter them nor let them adore him, for in flattery is condescension and in adoration is direction, and youth is neither seasoned nor tested enough to direct a nation. Nor should it be the president’s business to presume to direct them. It is difficult enough to do right by one’s own children. No one can be the father of a whole continent’s youth.

Is the president, therefore, expected to turn away from this and other easy advantage? Yes. Like Harry Truman, who went to bed before the result on election night, he must know when to withdraw, to hold back, and to forgo attention, publicity, or advantage.

There is no finer, more moving, or more profound understanding of the nature of the presidency and the command of humility placed upon it than that expressed by President Coolidge. He, like Lincoln, lost a child while he was president, a son of sixteen. “The day I became president,” Coolidge wrote, “he had just started to work in a tobacco field. When one of his fellow laborers said to him, ‘If my father was president I would not work in a tobacco field,’ Calvin replied, ‘If my father were your father you would.’” His admiration for the boy was obvious.

Young Calvin contracted blood poisoning from an incident on the South Lawn of the White House. Coolidge wrote, “What might have happened to him under other circumstances we do not know, but if I had not been president. . . .” And then he continued,

“In his suffering he was asking me to make him well. I could not. When he went, the power and glory of the Presidency went with him.”

A sensibility such as this, and not power, is the source of presidential dignity, and must be restored. It depends entirely upon character, self-discipline, and an understanding of the fundamental principles that underlie not only the republic, but life itself. It communicates that the president feels the gravity of his office and is willing to sacrifice himself; that his eye is not upon his own prospects but on the storm of history, through which he must navigate with the specific powers accorded to him and the limitations placed on those powers both by man and by God.

* * *

The modern presidency has drifted far from the great strength and illumination of its source: the Constitution as given life by the Declaration of Independence, the greatest political document ever written. The Constitution—terse, sober, and specific—does not, except by implication, address the president’s demeanor. But this we can read in the best qualities of the founding generation, which we would do well to imitate. In the Capitol Rotunda are heroic paintings of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the victory at Saratoga, the victory at Yorktown, and—something seldom seen in history—a general, the leader of an armed rebellion, resigning his commission and surrendering his army to a new democracy. Upon hearing from Benjamin West that George Washington, having won the war and been urged by some to use the army to make himself king, would instead return to his farm, King George III said: “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” He did, and he was.

To aspire to such virtue and self-restraint would in a sense be difficult, but in another sense it should be easy—difficult because it would be demanding and ideal, and easy because it is the right thing to do and the rewards are immediately self-evident.

A president who slights the Constitution is like a rider who hates his horse: he will be thrown, and the nation along with him. The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of existence, such as the Civil War, amendment should be the sole means of circumventing the Constitution. For if a president joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.

Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions whose purpose is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind? Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it. Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment. There is no allowance for a president to override it according to his supposed superior conception. Why is this good? It is good because the sun will burn out, the Ohio River will flow backwards, and the cow will jump over the moon 10,000 times before any modern president’s conception is superior to that of the Founders of this nation.

Would it be such a great surprise that a good part of the political strife of our times is because one president after another, rather than keeping faith with it, argues with the document he is supposed to live by? This discontent will only be calmed by returning the presidency to the nation’s first principles. The Constitution and the Declaration should be on a president’s mind all the time, as the prism through which the light of all question of governance passes. Though we have—sometimes gradually, sometimes radically—moved away from this, we can move back to it. And who better than the president to restore this wholesome devotion to limited government?

* * *

And as the president returns to the consistent application of the principles in the Constitution, he will also ensure fiscal responsibility and prosperity. Who is better suited, with his executive and veto powers, to carry over the duty of self-restraint and discipline to the idea of fiscal solvency? When the president restrains government spending, leaving room for the American people to enjoy the fruits of their labor, growth is inevitable. As Senator Robert Taft wrote: “Liberty has been the key to our progress in the past and is the key to our progress in the future.... If we can preserve liberty in all its essentials, there is no limit to the future of the American people.”

Whereas the president must be cautious, dutiful, and deferential at home, his character must change abroad. Were he to ask for a primer on how to act in relation to other states, which no holder of the office has needed to this point, and were that primer to be written by the American people, whether of 1776 or 2010, you can be confident that it would contain the following instructions:

You do not bow to kings. Outside our shores, the President of the United States of America bows to no man. When in foreign lands, you do not criticize your own country. You do not argue the case against the United States, but the case for it. You do not apologize to the enemies of the United States. Should you be confused, a country, people, or region that harbors, shelters, supports, encourages, or cheers attacks upon our country or the slaughter of our friends and families are enemies of the United States. And, to repeat, you do not apologize to them.

Closely related to this, and perhaps the least ambiguous of the president’s complex responsibilities, is his duty as commander-in-chief of the military. In this regard there is a very simple rule, unknown to some presidents regardless of party: If, after careful determination, intense stress of soul, and the deepest prayer, you go to war, then, having gone to war, you go to war to win. You do not cast away American lives, or those of the innocent noncombatant enemy, upon a theory, a gambit, or a notion. And if the politics of your own election or of your party intrude upon your decisions for even an instant—there are no words for this.

More commonplace, but hardly less important, are other expectations of the president in this regard. He must not stint on the equipment and provisioning of the armed forces, and if he errs it must be not on the side of scarcity but of surplus. And he must be the guardian of his troops, taking every step to avoid the loss of even a single life.

The American soldier is as precious as the closest of your kin—because he is your kin, and for his sake the president must, in effect, say to the Congress and to the people: ÒI am the Commander-in-Chief. It is my sacred duty to defend the United States, and to give our soldiers what they need to complete the mission and come home safe, whatever the cost.Ó

If, in fulfilling this duty, the president wavers, he will have betrayed his office, for this is not a policy, it is probity. It is written on the blood-soaked ground of Saratoga, Yorktown, Antietam, Cold Harbor, the Marne, Guadalcanal, the Pointe du Hoc, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a thousand other places in our history, in lessons repeated over and over again.

* * *

The presidency, a great and complex subject upon which I have only touched, has become symbolic of overreaching. There are many truths that we have been frightened to tell or face. If we run from them, they will catch us with our backs turned and pull us down. Better that we should not flee but rather stop and look them in the eye.

What might our forebears say to us, knowing what they knew, and having done what they did? I have no doubt that they would tell us to channel our passions, speak the truth and do what is right, slowly and with resolution; to work calmly, steadily and without animus or fear; to be like a rock in the tide, let the water tumble about us, and be firm and unashamed in our love of country.

I see us like those in Philadelphia in 1776. Danger all around, but a fresh chapter, ready to begin, uncorrupted, with great possibilities and—inexplicably, perhaps miraculously—the way is clearing ahead. I have never doubted that Providence can appear in history like the sun emerging from behind the clouds, if only as a reward for adherence to first principles. As Winston Churchill said in a speech to Congress on December 26, 1941: “He must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below, of which we have the honor to be the faithful servants.”

As Americans, we inherit what Lincoln in his First Inaugural called “the mystic chords of memory stretching from every patriot grave.” They bind us to the great and the humble, the known and the unknown of Americans past—and if I hear them clearly, what they say is that although we may have strayed, we have not strayed too far to return, for we are their descendants. We can still astound the world with justice, reason and strength. I know this is true, but even if it was not we could not in decency stand down, if only for our debt to history. We owe a debt to those who came before, who did great things, and suffered more than we suffer, and gave more than we give, and pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for us, whom they did not know. For we “drink from wells we did not dig” and are “warmed by fires we did not build,” and so we must be faithful in our time as they were in theirs.

Many great generations are gone, but by the character and memory of their existence they forbid us to despair of the republic. I see them crossing the prairies in the sun and wind. I see their faces looking out from steel mills and coal mines, and immigrant ships crawling into the harbors at dawn. I see them at war, at work and at peace. I see them, long departed, looking into the camera, with hopeful and sad eyes. And I see them embracing their children, who became us. They are our family and our blood, and we cannot desert them. In spirit, all of them come down to all of us, in a connection that, out of love, we cannot betray.

They are silent now and forever, but from the eternal silence of every patriot grave there is yet an echo that says, “It is not too late; keep faith with us, keep faith with God, and do not, do not ever despair of the republic.”
Bladerunner
Bladerunner

Posts : 91
Pundit Level : 198
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2010-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by swiftfoxmark2 on Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:15 pm

Blade, we shouldn't let loyalty be blind. We are not loyal to people, but ideas and when the people who supposedly represent those ideas by virtue of an association, they need to be held accountable.

Sadly, most conservatives would rather defend the people rather than the ideas they are suppose to support.

_________________
swiftfoxmark2
swiftfoxmark2

Posts : 437
Pundit Level : 1365
Poster Popularity : 2
Join date : 2009-08-29
Age : 37
Location : A leaf in the wind

http://swiftfoxmark2.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/swiftfoxmark2/

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by Bladerunner on Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:04 am

swiftfoxmark2 wrote:Blade, we shouldn't let loyalty be blind. We are not loyal to people, but ideas and when the people who supposedly represent those ideas by virtue of an association, they need to be held accountable.

Sadly, most conservatives would rather defend the people rather than the ideas they are suppose to support.
Swifty, there are some people to whom I am loyal, as in family and friends. And, I am loyal to those people I don't know who truly embody the ideas and principles that I hold dear. If you are suggesting that I am blindly loyal to a particular political party, i.e., the GOP, you are wrong. Maybe you are suggesting that there are no true conservatives who embody those principles and who are in a position to act upon them. Without people to give them life and breath, ideas mean absolutely nothing.
Bladerunner
Bladerunner

Posts : 91
Pundit Level : 198
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2010-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by Doc Trock on Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:01 pm

That speech was fantastic!

If only people who sincerely thought like that and acted accordingly could be elected.....

Great speech. Thanks for posting it.

My loyalty is to liberty....for all.
Doc Trock
Doc Trock

Posts : 206
Pundit Level : 322
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2010-07-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by Bladerunner on Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:03 pm

Doc Trock wrote:That speech was fantastic!

If only people who sincerely thought like that and acted accordingly could be elected.....
This came from Congressman Mike Pence, Doc. Obviously, he was elected and he is acting. He needs some help.
Bladerunner
Bladerunner

Posts : 91
Pundit Level : 198
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2010-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by imaginethat on Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:20 am

А great speech, no doubt.

Pence has been in office since 2001, and my question is: Why didn't he make this speech when Bush was in office? The speech certainly applies to Bush's and the neoconservatives' lusting for power.

I examined his voting record, nothing exceptionally conservative about it.
imaginethat
imaginethat

Posts : 208
Pundit Level : 307
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2009-08-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by Bladerunner on Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:59 pm

imaginethat wrote:А great speech, no doubt.

Pence has been in office since 2001, and my question is: Why didn't he make this speech when Bush was in office? The speech certainly applies to Bush's and the neoconservatives' lusting for power.

I examined his voting record, nothing exceptionally conservative about it.
Just as I expected, IT. I knew you that would take a dump on this, that you would again display your obsession with Bush and the "neo-cons". How the hell should I know why Pence didn't make this speech two or three years ago? Maybe it didn't really need to be said then. Maybe the threat to our nation wasn't so stark back then. "To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heavens . . . " Maybe the season is upon us. Seems to me the speech is infinitely more relevant now than it would have been two years ago.

As for "exceptionally conservative" voting records, I doubt there are but few to be found in this congress.
Bladerunner
Bladerunner

Posts : 91
Pundit Level : 198
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2010-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by imaginethat on Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:18 am

Well Blade, you completed my points, and Bush and the neoconservative did run this country, did involve us in two ongoing wars, did spend like liberals, did gather to themselves the potential if not the actuality of usurping basic freedoms, did run up deficits second only to Obama's.

Maybe this and maybe that, but the fact is when such a stirring speech is made by a man who has been in office since 2001, was a party to the neoconservative hijacking of the GOP, and who voted in line with the neoconservatives, I call "partisan politics," and nothing but talk ever results from partisan politics.

And I stand on that. Yes, you are damned right I am obsessed with revealing the illegitimate child enemies of our Republic, and you can expect that, and count on it, and you can denigrate my obsession, and I'm fine with that.

You are obsessed with revealing our Republic's enemies too, only you stumble a bit when the enemies are in your party. I have no party. I am not a Democrat or a Republican, or a Libertarian, or anything else.

I am an American, and you are too, and I will not lighten up on our Republic's enemies whatever party they hail from.

imaginethat
imaginethat

Posts : 208
Pundit Level : 307
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2009-08-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by Bladerunner on Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:48 am

IT, obviously you did not read my comments to Swifty above. My loyalty is not repeat not to any particular political party--save maybe the Tea Party. My impressions of your response compels me to suggest you be careful, there is a point where obsession can turn into rage, and with that comes irrationality. I hope that isn't the case, but, whenever posting on politics, your responses are so predicatable. It seems that you have a fixation on GW and the Republicans, that you despise them much more than this mob of fascists now driving the nails in our coffin. There is little we can do now to right the wrongs of past administrations. That water has already passed under the bridge; swimming in it is futile. We now have an enemy in the WH far more virulent than any real or supposed enemy in our past. This is the enemy we must now fight (the domestic one), and if there are some politicians out there--in any party--who have awakened to this truth, what is the harm in at least giving them the benefit of the doubt?
Bladerunner
Bladerunner

Posts : 91
Pundit Level : 198
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2010-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by imaginethat on Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:32 am

Bladerunner wrote:IT, obviously you did not read my comments to Swifty above. My loyalty is not repeat not to any particular political party--save maybe the Tea Party. My impressions of your response compels me to suggest you be careful, there is a point where obsession can turn into rage, and with that comes irrationality. I hope that isn't the case, but, whenever posting on politics, your responses are so predicatable. It seems that you have a fixation on GW and the Republicans, that you despise them much more than this mob of fascists now driving the nails in our coffin. There is little we can do now to right the wrongs of past administrations. That water has already passed under the bridge; swimming in it is futile. We now have an enemy in the WH far more virulent than any real or supposed enemy in our past. This is the enemy we must now fight (the domestic one), and if there are some politicians out there--in any party--who have awakened to this truth, what is the harm in at least giving them the benefit of the doubt?

Thanks Blade. I'm OK. What Bush and the neocons did to our country I can never forget nor forgive. I had my "Obama Moment" seven-plus years ago. Pence was a part of the neocon cabal, so while I liked the speech, I call hypocrite.

As for fixation, predictability, I assure you that on other forums I push Obama's hypocrisy square in the face of liberals. On GOP/conservative forums, hammering Obama is a given, but still, STILL to this day some Republicans/conservatives STILL are in denial over what the GOP, under the sway of the neocons, did to our country.

I don't despise Bush et al more than Obama et al. I despise them equally, despise Obama for what he's doing and has done, and despise Bush not only for what he did, but for paving the way to Obama.

Harping on the GOP/neocons is VITAL, because they still are around, and they are silver-tongued devils, knowing just what to say, and when.
imaginethat
imaginethat

Posts : 208
Pundit Level : 307
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2009-08-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by Bladerunner on Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:45 am

imaginethat wrote: . . . . but still, STILL to this day some Republicans/conservatives STILL are in denial over what the GOP, under the sway of the neocons, did to our country.

I don't despise Bush et al more than Obama et al. I despise them equally, despise Obama for what he's doing and has done, and despise Bush not only for what he did, but for paving the way to Obama.

Harping on the GOP/neocons is VITAL, because they still are around, and they are silver-tongued devils, knowing just what to say, and when.
Have you read Angelo Codevilla's piece, "America's Ruling Class"? It presents a clear view of the political divide between the Ruling Class and the Country Class. ("Country", as in the People). You can rail all you want against the "ruling elites", Republican, democrat, whatever, but they won't change. They are self-serving career politicians who have sold their souls and there is no hope for them. And, you may believe that exposing them to the ill informed masses might turn the trick. But that too seems to me a futile effort.

What just happened on Nov 2 has changed the color of things. Many of them have never held office before, many, even a year ago, had no thoughts of doing so. What inspired them? What made them restructure their priorities and step up to the plate? They are Country Class folks going to bat for us. Those who are now on their way to the offices of government (local, state, and federal) are the ones demanding our attention. They are the ones who, probably more than any politician in a long time, understand why they ran and why they won, who are acutely aware of who gave them that win, and what they must do to earn that confidence.

There may be a few of them who are weak and who will fall from grace, who will get sucked into the corrupt system, either by choice or circumstance, but those who stand their ground and hold themselves accountable to people who gave them the chance are the ones who concern me now. And, that goes for the new breed coming just two years down the road.

Regarding BHO, for the most part, you have three choices, you can "preach to the choir", "push his hypocracy squarely in the face of liberals", or, you can target those obama supporters who are waking up, climbing on the fence, or are now deeply in buyer's remorse. Seems the number of these latter are growing. Yet, right now, it is the fresh faces heading to the front line in this war that need us the most. Without us to hold them accountable, to back them when they act rightly, or to hammer them if they yield, without us behind them, watching them, and giving them their marching orders, they will likely swallow the poison and succumb.

Still, if it satisfies your sense of right and wrong to hammer the Ruling Class, be they currently in office or no longer, then have at it. I wish you luck.
Bladerunner
Bladerunner

Posts : 91
Pundit Level : 198
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2010-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by imaginethat on Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:58 pm

You don't see hammering Obama as hammering the Ruling Class?

And these new faces, yes, they are a ray of hope. But when reprobate neocons make lofty speeches as though they, all along, have embraced the lofty principles spoken of in the lofty speech, it is imperitive to call them out.

The primary reason why this is correct action is exactly to educate the people who now must do what comes after voting: Hold those elected to the promises and principles upon which they campaigned.

Silver-tongued devil neocons are still around, still masquerading as conservatives, still making wonderful sounding speeches, and they will, guaranteed, attempt to eat these fresh faces, sway them, offer them a place in "the club," and some will succumb.

That is why our duty is to blow the whistle on the liberals and neocons. That is why when a neocon in his sixth term makes a speech that does not reflect his ten year record, we MUST call: hypocrite.

And, of all things and people requiring correction, the most vital act of correction is correcting ourselves, those of us who were sucked by the neocons. That old saying, "Fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice, shame on me."

Many of the neoconservative persuasion are hoping, counting on the abomination of the Obamination to blind people to what they did, and thus, for some not knowing where else to turn, to have the very ones fooled once become willing to be fooled twice. I'm not saying that you are one of these people. I am saying that such people exist, and are willing to be fooled twice.
imaginethat
imaginethat

Posts : 208
Pundit Level : 307
Poster Popularity : 0
Join date : 2009-08-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Yeah, that about sums it up

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum