Unfortunately it's longer than 2 sentences, so many wont take the time. But it is exactly--on point.
http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/
http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/
This is a brilliantly written article.
- Thread starter raleighherdfan
- Start date
Maybe conservatism is wrong on human nature. This whole thing is human nature taking its course collectively.
Still, I have stopped believing in alarmists on both sides. We, at least those willing to do the work required to keep civilization going, will find a way. We already go around the PC garbage anyhow and forge ahead in our areas of the world that these trashy losers can't afford to be in anyway.
These politicians need us. We don't need them. If they don't want to help us do things, we'll do them ourselves and push them aside.
Still, I have stopped believing in alarmists on both sides. We, at least those willing to do the work required to keep civilization going, will find a way. We already go around the PC garbage anyhow and forge ahead in our areas of the world that these trashy losers can't afford to be in anyway.
These politicians need us. We don't need them. If they don't want to help us do things, we'll do them ourselves and push them aside.
Theoretically you are correct. However, the practicality of "pushing them aside" is getting harder to do, as they legislate their existence at all levels.
IMO, certain principles of "conservatism" are the only reason we have expanded our world to this point. We would have starved to death centuries ago.
Evidently, we are now at a point where things are too good. Everyone is quite comfortable. Until this is no longer the case, the issue will continue to be pushed in terms of how far in debt we can go, how many stray cats we can accept, how much longer we can reward irresponsibility, etc.
i've had a couple discussions with my parents about the candidates. in each i presented the outcomes in a similar way as the author here...
if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.
people scared of what Trump "might do" have no idea how government works. he will be the most scrutinized president in history. he will have the entire Democratic party against him and a large portion of the GOP. if he fails to dot an "i" or cross a "t" there will be hearings and probably a call for impeachment proceedings. worst case scenario, he makes it 4 years and someone else takes over. BUT.... he is a wildcard. we have no idea what will happen in the country if he given a shot. we know EXACTLY what will happen with Hillary. does anybody honestly think 40 years from now people will look back and wonder what might have been if Hillary had a chance? fvck no... everybody knows how that song and dance plays out. but you can bet your ass if Clinton wins there will always be people "wondering" what Trump could have accomplished...
if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.
people scared of what Trump "might do" have no idea how government works. he will be the most scrutinized president in history. he will have the entire Democratic party against him and a large portion of the GOP. if he fails to dot an "i" or cross a "t" there will be hearings and probably a call for impeachment proceedings. worst case scenario, he makes it 4 years and someone else takes over. BUT.... he is a wildcard. we have no idea what will happen in the country if he given a shot. we know EXACTLY what will happen with Hillary. does anybody honestly think 40 years from now people will look back and wonder what might have been if Hillary had a chance? fvck no... everybody knows how that song and dance plays out. but you can bet your ass if Clinton wins there will always be people "wondering" what Trump could have accomplished...
You really linked an article that managed to mention the usual modern GOP obsession with "sexual morality"? Jesus Christ...
And that's where I stopped reading, BTW. The author knows not a thing about true conservatism (classical liberalism).
And that's where I stopped reading, BTW. The author knows not a thing about true conservatism (classical liberalism).
Of course you did. I had no doubts you would. That's why I suggested some would stop reading because it was more than 2 sentences.
The author was actually questioning their hypocrisy on the subject. That's ok. You know all.
He's questioning their hypocrisy because they shy away from actually fighting for such values. Looks like you may not know much. Hell, this is a piece from one of William Bennett's groups, so I bet I am right
The US isn't going down the shitter because of a lack of sexual morality. There's a lot of "conversation values" I back, but personal liberty tends to trump the others.
You said Trump.....He's questioning their hypocrisy because they shy away from actually fighting for such values. Looks like you may not know much. Hell, this is a piece from one of William Bennett's groups, so I bet I am right
The US isn't going down the shitter because of a lack of sexual morality. There's a lot of "conversation values" I back, but personal liberty tends to trump the others.
He's questioning their hypocrisy because they shy away from actually fighting for such values. Looks like you may not know much. Hell, this is a piece from one of William Bennett's groups, so I bet I am right
The US isn't going down the shitter because of a lack of sexual morality. There's a lot of "conversation values" I back, but personal liberty tends to trump the others.
The article actually agrees with you on some of this. Again if you read past the 3rd paragraph he raises many of the same points you usually make on here regarding the Neo-cons he is calling out. You've chosen to select one single component (sexual morality) of a much broader "family values" principle and ignore everything else.
Again. Not surprising.
I actually read the whole thing, and was being a smartass. I don't get the same reading as you. He is saying the house is burning down and apparently fvcking is one of the dozen reasons. Now, I'll give you that certain demographics refuse to responsibly screw, but that's another ballgame.
How is it another ballgame? Especially considering how illegitimacy and/or single family homes,within certain demographics, lead to a host of related social and fiscal dysfunctions we currently see in our society.
Certain demographics. Hell, 90 some percent of the worthless bums I know are white. The stupidity wave crashes against rocks of all colors these days.
I somewhat perused the article so I'm not sure if it hit on this, but the overall softness of the haves is what causes all this. This is their luxury. The losers are their pawns. The winners have won so much that they can afford to buy people to depend on them so they can feel better about themselves.
If those who have agree to quit supporting those who are unwilling to go get, then this all comes to an end. But it's not gonna happen until the haves can't afford it. People aren't giving up their pawns and pets.
I somewhat perused the article so I'm not sure if it hit on this, but the overall softness of the haves is what causes all this. This is their luxury. The losers are their pawns. The winners have won so much that they can afford to buy people to depend on them so they can feel better about themselves.
If those who have agree to quit supporting those who are unwilling to go get, then this all comes to an end. But it's not gonna happen until the haves can't afford it. People aren't giving up their pawns and pets.
Because government should not be in the morality business.
Government also should not be in the business of supporting irresponsibility, thus it is another ballgame.
