I don't want weak conservatives
By the time I was born in 1987, Britain was beginning to raise the lion’s roar once more. Margaret Thatcher was in power, and many of the failing socialized industries had been privatized to great success. For eighteen golden years Britain was swinging back with a fury. The Thatcher and Major conservative governments had well and truly put Britain back on track, and had its finances well in order.
We must take an approach that makes what we are looking for clear and concise. The liberals like the bush family have taken the term conservative and turned it into a term which means nothing more than a different form of liberal. Tea Party, Constitutionalists or Libertarian are terms that I know who they are when they say they are one of these. Conservative needs a qualifier, a description to know if you are talking small government or big government.
As Wilson put it at a American Communist Association convention, not word for word as I cant remember the exact word usage, control the language and you have all ready won the fight.
We often use terms that have many meanings, generalizing. that plays to there advantage. Our case is made best when its concrete and clear. Theirs is best in a fog of unreality and emotion. When we use the term conservative rather than small government we allow them to define what we mean rather than make it clear.
Its there in my post, liberal is fascism and conservative is socialism. When people think conservatives today stand for small government I think they are using the wrong words because I do not want another Bush (or anyone like him) as president. He is a big government conservative just like Obama is a big government Liberal.
My point was and still is that the conservative label is no longer equated with small government and we need to change the language so people know what we mean. I am pro small government, not a conservative. .
I don't want a huge military to enforce Christianity on anybody (aren't Moslems rather... conservative?). I want a huge military to enforce the will of the United States on anyone who might pose a threat.
---
"But, continued the alien, "you are not using - that?"
"Not exactly," said Barden.
"No, for that means death."
"We were going to try it out," was Barden's calm thought.
"On-NO!" came the terrified reply.
"Well,", returned Barden, we're never pleased with red-hots who shoot at us!"
"But an entire system?" came the pleading exclamation.
"Filled with people of the same ilk," returned Barden, unimpressed.
"But even warfare must not be annihilation," objected the alien. "For of what value is a dead enemy?"
"They are no longer any bother," Barden grunted. "We dislike being bothered, and our will happens to be that we want to go whereever we choose at any time we please. A favorable attitude upon the part of any other culture is one that permits us our will. A dead culture will never obstruct us, for one thing. It will never revert to its original attitude of belligerency, for the second thing. And for the third thing, alien, with the interstellar drive we have, we can find those cultures in the galaxy which see exactly as we do; therefore it is to our advantage to eliminate any malcontents right now."
- "The Catspaw", by George O. Smith
------
Note that they don't, in fact, wipe out the alien species in question.
Note also that, while that little scene parallels my general foreign policy position, nowhere did "Christianity" enter into it. Stop fearing Christians; they're dying to keep you safe from Islam.
You are mistaken. We have not had a conservative controlled house, senate and executive for at least 20 years. The Bushes are not conservatives, they are progressives in Republican clothing. Boehner and the Republicans currently controlling the House are not conservatives, and have made their hostility toward conservatives clear.
The reason we threw the Republicans out in 2006, and it was conservatives who were behind it, was because they weren't, in fact, acting like conservatives.
The liberals, in fact, do love fascism; that's why they've promoted so much of it since they got Obama in the WH.
The handful of conservatives in the House have done a Homeric job of fighting the battle, but they must fight both the progressive Democrats and the progressive Republicans.
I do not want conservatives at all. They tend to want to tell people if they can get an abortion or not, want to have a huge military, want to enforce Christianity on everyone else.... Conservatives have not been about small government in the US since the mid to late nineties, that is why the fascism has started to move at a much faster pace.
With a "conservative" controlled house, senate and executive branch we got the Patriot Act so that the feds can record whatever conversation they feel like. We also were blessed with "no child left behind" a huge step forward to indoctrinating our kids. These were not weak conservatives; enemies to small government and freedom would be a better way of stating it.
To be a weak conservative would indicate a weak friend to small government. Our "conservatives" are simply wolves in sheep's clothing who love socialism only slightly less than the liberals love fascism. We have for many years had the choice of a fascist or a socialist for president.
The only thing worse than not showing up to fight is to show up make a fight and loose it. That empowers your opponent in a way that just not showing up cannot compare. The issue is we have people showing up for our team that are really on the other side. A few people that are only mediocre at there jobs but actually were for small government would give people like Mike Lee some followers to lead. He needs em, Ron Paul needs them. It would be even better to get them people like themselves that will fight the fight but the numbers wont add up if that's all we give them, there just are not enough people like them that run for office.
It is the weak conservatives who have put liberals in charge and have compromised our founding principles.