Jo-Joe Politico: IT'S TIME TO BE A CONSERVATIVE IN MORE THAN NAME ONLY

Saturday, November 24, 2012

IT'S TIME TO BE A CONSERVATIVE IN MORE THAN NAME ONLY

26 comments:

Ducky's here said...: Double down, Joe. Double down.

You won't see a Republican in the White House for decades.; November 24, 2012 at 12:14 AM
Xavier Onassis said...: I sincerely hope that Bill Whittle will be the campaign manager and chief speech writer of every major Republican candidate for the next 10 years.

Because he is so totally out of touch with mainstream America he will guarantee a Democratic majority for decades to come.

He's in the bottom of a deep, deep hole and he just keeps digging like a steam shovel.

Go Bill, GO! Be even more conservative! Please! I'm begging you!

Because America finds that crap to be hysterical and we love a good laugh!; November 24, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Xavier Onassis said...: Here is what's America and how to fix it.
http://hipsubwg.blogspot.com/2012/11/heres-whats-wrong-with-america-and-how.html; November 24, 2012 at 1:34 AM
Joe said...: XO: Surprise!

I agree with you about the three things “destroying America.”

Our primary election system is warped and needs fixing.

The way to fix it, however, is not about the extremes, but about fixing the attitudes of the voters, right, left and extreme middle, as well as the MainStream Media, which insists on taking sides and promoting one candidate over another. It also involves more emphasis on objective education in what we used to call “Social Studies” (how government, voting and society works).

The way we draw congressional districts is immoral beyond the pale.

I agree with “Independent Redistricting” by some means and I agree with California’s primary system.

It’s the only thing I agree with about California politics.

Filibustering must go. It is intrinsically evil.

But I don’t agree that these are all of the things “destroying America.”

We need a “one bill – one topic” rule.

We need a fiscal policy by which we live within our means.

We need a flat tax (not to be confused with a so-called "fair tax"), so that the meaning of “fair” is restored, not penalizing hard work and success just because we can.

We need to encourage productivity, not welfare. This is not to say do away with welfare. It is to say provide it for those who cannot work…people worse off than Stephen Hawking.

A couple of dozen other things need to be “fixed,” as well, but space is limited here.; November 24, 2012 at 7:25 AM
Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...: Re-posted and linked, great job!; November 24, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Ducky's here said...: "...as well as the MainStream Media, which insists on taking sides and promoting one candidate over another."

---------------
No.

The TV medium is in the election business to maximize ads and revenue.
That's true of radio and print to a more limited extent.

As a result the TV medium wants to promote the idea of a close race. Witness how the kept talking up Romney (he was favored, if anyone).

The Republican primary was a sorry affair as a new "leader" (of what?) was anointed every other week.
Your correct that a system which highlights Herman Cain has some imperfections.
But it moved Romney to the right (who knows what he really stands for, the media didn't care) and cost you the election.; November 24, 2012 at 4:30 PM
Glenn E. Chatfield said...: We also need to bring our military people home and quit sending them out as the world's police force. And if we are going to have them out there, then let the generals make the combat decisions and tell the politicians - i.e. the President - to shut up and sit down. Politicians ruling over generals is why we screwed up in Korea, why we lost the Vietnam War, and why we are losing in Afghanistan.; November 24, 2012 at 6:26 PM
Ducky's here said...: Is the POTUS no longer the commander in chief?; November 24, 2012 at 7:45 PM
Glenn E. Chatfield said...: The current POTUS shouldn't be, because he has no clue as to how the military works!; November 24, 2012 at 7:59 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: G.E.C. - "The current POTUS shouldn't be, because he has no clue as to how the military works!"

But he is. Because a majority of Americans voted for him to be.

Twice.

Oh, and unlike the draft dodger GWB, Obama actually managed to find and kill bin Laden.

Our military is completely subordinate to civilian rule, as MacArthur discovered, much to his surprise.; November 24, 2012 at 8:11 PM
Glenn E. Chatfield said...: X.O.
Um, no, the majority of Americans did NOT vote for Obamanation. Only a small majority of those who voted did.

GWB at least served in the military. Obama has no clue about the military.

Obama only got Osama because the system to find him was already in place - otherwise he wouldn't have had a clue. And it took him all sorts of vacillating before he finally made the decision. But GWB wouldn't have left our people in Libya hang out to dry.

Yes the military is subordinate to civilian rule, but when the civilian has no clue he just gets the military killed for nonsense. Which is what happened in Korea, Vietnam and now Afghanistan. The politicians play games while the troops die.; November 25, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Xavier Onassis said...: G.E.C - Americans who vote are the only Americans who matter.

GWB was a privileged coward who hid in the National Guard to avoid the draft and being went to Vietnam. And by all accounts he was pretty difficult to locate most of the time.; November 25, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Joe said...: XO: "...who hid in the National Guard..."

That is an OUTRAGEOUS, beyond the pale slur on the National Guard.

To consider being in the National Guard hiding from something is to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of who they are, what they do and their value.

That is as imbecilic a statement as anyone except a liberal could make.

You bring dishonor to the National Guard, and that is inexcusable.

The National Guard is involved in more peace-keeping activities and human relief/aide than all of the other military branches put together.

In no way am I denigrating or diminishing the other branches. I am only emphasizing the importance of the National Guard.

Your characterization of them, sir, indicates that you are a dishonorable person.; November 25, 2012 at 1:14 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: Joe - In the Vietnam era, the National Guard was not deployed in overseas combat, as you well know. The situation today is far different. In Iraq and Afghanistan the National Guard saw every bit as much combat and sacrifice as every other branch of the Armed Forces.

The idea behind the National Guard has always been exactly what the name implied. They guarded the nation. That's why we never sent them overseas during wartime. Their job was to stay here and protect us if our borders were attacked. They can't protect us if they aren't here.

But in the Vietnam era, the National Guard was a clever dodge to avoid getting drafted and sent overseas to face combat. The borders of the United States have not been breeched by a hostile military force since the war of 1812. The National Guard was a 100% safe way to say "Hey, I'm serving my country" without ever putting yourself in harm's way.

And there is AMPLE evidence that even while dodging the draft in the National Guard to avoid combat, GWB failed to live up to his obligations, was missing much of the time and generally shirked his duties.

You know all of this is true so save your righteous indignation for one of those rare occasions when you actually have facts on your side.; November 25, 2012 at 7:54 PM
Glenn E. Chatfield said...: X.O.
All Americans matter. But liberals only think they matter if they agree with them.

You have no evidence to support your charge of cowardice. Just because someone didn't want to go to an illegal war, that doesn't make one a coward.; November 26, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Ducky's here said...: Joe, you just got a history lesson.

But you were there. I'm surprised you decided to play Mickey the Dunce on this issue.

Chucklenuts ducked the possibility of combat. Simple.; November 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Joe said...: XO: "But in the Vietnam era, the National Guard was a clever dodge to avoid getting drafted and sent overseas to face combat."

So all members of the National Guard were there to "avoid the draft?" Is that really your stance?

That's funny. I can think of dozens of reasons to join the National Guard instead of enlisting in the other branches of the military.

And what if those in the National Guard during the Viet Nam era had not been there? How would they have been called to service in this country when they were needed, as they were many times in that era?

You think that because you think GWB "dodged the draft" he therefore "dodged the draft."

Newsflash! You don't get to mind read someone else's decision making process. Couldn't if you did get to.

You just walked in lock-step with the other mindless liberals who hated GWB and accused him of something he did not do.; November 26, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Xavier Onassis said...: Joe - Do you remember the phrase "Weekend Warriors"?

The National Guard during the Vietnam Era was a place where combat veterans who had actually served in the Armed Forces could stay involved in the military and earn a little extra pay by serving one weekend a month.

It was more like camping out and "playing Army" with real equipment.

Sure, they might occasionally need to pitch in during a flood or a tornado. Or, in the case of YOUR part of the country, enforcing segregation and blocking integration.

But the National Guard in those days was almost exclusively made up of combat veterans from WWII and Korea.

The only people without previous military service who proactively joined the National Guard were draft dodgers who wanted to avoid combat without the stigma of "never having served their country in a time of war".

They couldn't claim "contentious objector" status and they certainly couldn't flee to Canada without being called cowards. So they joined the National Guard.

And by all accounts, GWB didn't even take THAT level of national service seriously.

He phoned it in and did the absolute bare minimum required and in some cases he did even less than the bare minimum and was given a pass by his superiors because of his family connections.

And this shameless, cocaine-snorting, drunken coward didn't hesitate to start 2 wars and send American sons and daughters into a meat grinder that he himself jumped through hoops to avoid.

Republican, Conservative values.

Indeed.; November 26, 2012 at 9:54 PM
Glenn E. Chatfield said...: X.O. has become the self-appointed expert in knowing the reasons why people were in the National Guard during the Vietnam war era. He obviously got the names of all those who were on the rosters of the time and personally interviewed them.

Tell me, X.O., what were you doing during that time?; November 27, 2012 at 8:20 AM
Joe said...: XO: "The only people without previous military service who proactively joined the National Guard were draft dodgers."

That is pure nonsense. You heard that from someone who heard that from someone who heard that from someone and so you believe it.

The fact is, many National Guard members were folks who wanted to serve, but whose regular jobs sustained them better than the military could at the time. They joined the National Guard to serve their country and get paid by their jobs at the same time.

My father was a deputy commander of Robins AFB at that time and had nothing but high regard for those who gave up their weekends (and other times, too) to serve their country in the National Guard.

If they were respected by a United States Air Force officer, they certainly have my respect.

Apparently not yours.

As G.E.C. asked, what were YOU doing during that time?; November 27, 2012 at 9:35 AM
Xavier Onassis said...: "Tell me, X.O., what were you doing during that time?"

"As G.E.C. asked, what were YOU doing during that time?"

I was born in 1955 so for much of the Vietnam era I was riding bikes and trading Batman and James Bond bubble gum cards with my buddies.

I first became politically aware and active in 1968 at the age of 12. I spent that summer handing out buttons and bumper stickers for Hubert Humphrey. I'd have preferred to be doing it for Bobby Kennedy but he was dead.

I spent my teens as one of the youngest hippies and never missed a chance to hitch hike into Kansas City to attend anti-war protests.

When I turned 17 I registered for the draft. Because it was the law.

By the time I turned 18 in 1973 the draft was over and the country switched to an all volunteer service.

I declined to volunteer.

I have always been true to my philosophical and moral core which is why I have absolutely no patience for hypocrits like GWB, and utter contempt for the conservative movement, the Republican Party and evangelical Christians.; November 27, 2012 at 10:08 AM
Joe said...: XO: "...utter contempt for the conservative movement, the Republican Party and evangelical Christians."

Well, we have utter contempt for the liberal movement, the Democrat Party and atheists.

Now that we know where each other stands, how do we once again become a UNITED States?

Do we give up our position or do you give up yours?; November 27, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: Joe - The answer to your question is both the simplest answer and the most complicated answer.

Compromise.

I have to give up some of my deeply held convictions and you have to give up some of yours.

We both have to recognize that in order for the UNITED States to survive, and for Americans to thrive, neither one of us can win.

We absolutely MUST sacrifice a portion of our core beliefs in order to reach agreement and get things done.

That is the basis of democracy.

Love of country must take priority over love of party, or religion, or lack of religion, or personal causes.

I honestly believe that if you and I could share a table together, we would find a way to reach agreement on more matters than we disagree.

Honorable men can disagree without being disagreeable and find common ground to achieve a greater good.

Our country was founded on this idea. Let's not screw it up now.; November 27, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Joe said...: XO: OK. Which of your core beliefs are you willing to give up?

Name 3.; November 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: Joe - "XO: OK. Which of your core beliefs are you willing to give up?

Name 3."

I didn't say "core beliefs". I said "deeply held convictions". I fine point, I admit.

I don't think conservatives or liberals need to "give up their core beliefs" in order to reach a compromise that allows government to function.

A perfect compromise is when both political parties are unhappy with the deal, but the average American citizen comes out on top.

That is what we elect our representatives to do.; November 28, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: OK, I did say "core beliefs". My bad. LOL! I should have used "key positions" instead of either "core beliefs" or "deeply held convictions".

The bottom line is, we have to find away to compromise for the greater good.

What's best for America has to take priority over what's best for conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats.

Intelligent people of good will should be able to get this done.; November 28, 2012 at 11:42 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

There Are But A Few Rules To Follow

1. Absolutely no foul language (including the use of asterisks). If you are not man or woman enough to control your language, you are not welcome here...go somewhere else.

2. I am not looking for strings of commenters arguing with each other, so confine your comments to the topic at hand and address your comments to me, unless you can be exceptionally gracious and polite.

3. Since this is my blog, I am the sole arbiter of what can be placed on this blog. My decisions are final and without recourse. All anonymous comments, unsigned, will be deleted, as will ad hominem attacks against me or others.

4. Within the scope of those rules, you may feel free to have fun here (I sure will). Sarcasm, wit, half-wit, nit-wit, parody, satire, puns (especially puns), etc. are encouraged.

FOUR PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE TRUE CONSERVATISM:

1. Respect for The Constitution

2. Respect for Life

3. The Smallest Possible Government

4. Individual Responsibility

This blog is about my philosophy of government, which is a very conservative philosophy.

You are not required to agree with me (although you would be better off if you did).

I am biased toward conservatism, and make no apologies for that.

Freedom means not being controlled by the government, that being the very reason we declared our independence from Great Britain.

Government's job is not to provide things for people, but to provide the opportunity for people to persue the things they want via the vehicles of freedom and responsibility.

FAIR USE

FAIR USE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.