In response to:

Last Hurrah of Nixon's 'New Majority'?

CoachKr Wrote: Aug 28, 2012 9:26 AM
You can diversity or a successful country. You cannot have both. The Left would prefer the former, as long as socialism envelops the nation. I am glad I won't be here to see the Diversity States of America, an immoral cesspool, where homosexuality is required, and every woman is required to have at least one abortion. Civil war would happen in a sane nation. It won't though; no one on the right has the you-know-what to lead it.
IAdmitIAmCrazy Wrote: Aug 28, 2012 9:42 AM
It alway suprises me when conservatives overplay their hand:

Are you really that obtuse to think that a drive to allow everybody to live according to his/her sexual orientation suddenly turns into imposing just one orientation?

The same for bortion: Freedom of choice is what it means; why would anybody - other than conservative opponents of abortion - restrict this choice?

Really, you don't do your cause a favor, and then your brethren wonder why liberals hold people like you in contempt!

As regards diversity: How come that the U.S. the shining city on the hill turned into such a power? Because successive waves of DIVERSE immigrants were integrated.

Obtuseness in a political foe, w really hurts; if I were on your sides I'd pile on you
True Conservative! Wrote: Aug 28, 2012 12:29 PM
Yeah, you ARE crazy ... and idiotic; but then, that's what leftists are!
Conservative abroad Wrote: Aug 28, 2012 9:15 PM
The US became a superpower by winning WW2 and at the time was over 90% European. Since the 1965 immigration act that started mass 3rd world immigration, the welfare programs and deficit have grown, wage disparity which was shrinking since the immigration cutoff of the 1920's has exploded again, our education has declined, we couldn't go back to the moon even if we tried, prison population has increased greatly, etc, etc......
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Aug 28, 2012 9:42 AM
Re: CoachKr,
-- You can [have] diversity or a successful country. You cannot have both. --

I prefer to have successful people, not "countries." Almost all the time, "country" and "The State" are interchangeable, for the simple reason that the collective concept of "country" is a mirage, an abstraction meant to name lines on a map. What's important is the people, not the territory.

Yes, I am NOT a collectivist/Socialist. I don't think in terms of "countries," "societies," or "clowders," except to facilitate speech. Progressives (and their faux-conservative brethren) will almost always resort to collectivist platitudes disguised as appeals to reason: "We must be number one!"

Looking back all the way to America's Civil War, there have been three dominant presidential coalitions.

The first was Abraham Lincoln's. With his war to restore the Union and his martyrdom, Lincoln inaugurated an era of Republican dominance that lasted more than seven decades and saw only two Democratic presidents: Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.

The second coalition was FDR's, where he and his vice president Harry Truman won five consecutive presidential elections. Only Gen. Eisenhower could break that streak.

The third was Richard Nixon's New Majority, cobbled together after his narrow 1968 victory, where he annexed the...