Previous -3 - 2
In response to:

The Conservative Catharsis

Geoffrey7 Wrote: Jan 16, 2015 3:28 PM
This seems like a very snide remark. It may be that "incapable to bring about change...as it was originally intended." means conservatives are voting for politicians who say conservative things but once in power vote to continue government expansion. Thus, the problem isn't with the citizenry but with the politicians. Perhaps you like the steady replacement of capitalism with socialism. If you find yourself among the privileged elite, would you take pity on us and allow us to plant our own gardens? Or if you found yourself among the huddled masses, would you thank the elite for guaranteeing you an equal share of a crumbling pie, as long as everyone chants the approved slogans? There won't be any liberty, of course, that wouldn't be socially just, nor as much equality as was promised, but there'd be plenty of brotherhood waiting in line for stale bread and thin soup.
In response to:

The Conservative Catharsis

Geoffrey7 Wrote: Jan 16, 2015 10:29 AM
Big government of course means more spending, more taxes now or hidden taxes via inflation, more regulations, more invasions of privacy, more immigration of low skilled workers but without the low skilled jobs, which leads to a feudal class dependent on welfare and big government. As the government crowds out civil society, the masses lose the will to fight back because its more comfortable to be popular and in the mainstream. May I make a modest proposal? How about reduced spending, not a reduction in the projected growth but a real cut, and reduced regulations, enforcement of immigration laws (e.g., a wall plus massive deportations), and privatization (i.e., vouchers) of entitlement programs, replace welfare with private charity and the occasional emergency relief bill? Does that sound conservative? We need to fight the bastardization of the language and define words to prevent confusion, because only a liar needs to alter words to hide their agenda.
The government has become so corrupt, it no longer serves it primary function: to protect our individual liberties, our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence follows this famous phrase with a remedy: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." As Mark Levin pointed out, the Constitution has a remedy to achieve this non violently: state legislatures can convene and approve amendments for ratification, bypassing Congress entirely (two-thirds or 33 states to meet, 38 to ratify). STOP hoping that Washington will "get it" and change (there are institutional forces that are too powerful and too many people want to keep the spending wide open) and START putting pressure on the state reps who may be more open to convincing or replacing. This is where the grass roots/the Tea Party activists might actually accomplish real change. If we don't soon (I reckon we have less than 10 years before a currency collapse and a full blown police state emerges) then we'll lose the Republic and, to add insult to injury, be blamed for it!
What if they advocate the peaceful overthrow of the constitution by redefining it, calling it a "living document"?
In response to:

Still Lying About Hollywood's Communists

Geoffrey7 Wrote: Jan 09, 2015 11:20 AM
The dilemma open societies faced then and now, in light of the Islamo-fascist threat, is how to preserve civil liberties when radicals use them to gain power with the intent to end these liberties. The day you give the government the power to shut down websites or remove journalists or professors who demonstrate a radical philosophy, there will be a day when a tea party group is targeted (e.g., recent IRS abuses). Should we shut down Jihadi websites who advocate violence? That's an easy one, right? Except if you read the Declaration of Independence, it advocates the peoples' right to remove a government if it does not protect our natural rights. What about religious ones advocating Sharia law (which is against 1st amendment freedoms)? The Communists and Nazis likewise were/are against these freedoms, so should we remove their 1st amendment protections? That's the conundrum: how far do we dare go to protect freedom from those who would destroy it, whether unwittingly or deliberately?
Ken, I share your sympathy for the plight of the middle class, however I respectfully disagree with the position you've taken. The 17% taken out for entitlements would be offset by deductions, Earned Income Tax Credits and the like. As the article documents, the lowest 3 quintiles all receive more than they give. Its a net gain for them. I cannot tell if you accidently missed this simple part of the equation that anyone who fills out their taxes would know, but your remarks about what the Obamas (and by extension, anyone who earns a high income) can or cannot afford, suggests you favor an even greater share of the burden be forced on the backs of the most productive earners (with the exception of the banksters, but I digress). If my suspicions are correct, you are aiding and abetting the slow destruction of my liberty, and unwittingly your own, to appease your misplaced sense of envy.
Previous -3 - 2