It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The far-far right ain't so-so bad.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
With this 2004 election, many people became confused (through the media) over what really is a conservative republican. Well... it's been a long time since republicans were "pure conservatives" and perhaps a review of the far-far right is in order. First, in a pure sense, the Bush crew are extreme social neo-conservatives. Building a semi-conservative stance through one narrow interpretation on social issues. Pure conservatism has much deeper roots, and many of today's liberals may find some common ground. An interesting place to poke about (the Overlord does quite often) is, of all places, Pat Buchanan's American Cause Website. The link leads you to an interesting page...

We believe that America's prosperity and progress hinge on our fidelity to founding principles: national independence, limited government, individual liberty, and traditional morality.
I'm in for all but the "morality" part... let's not try and dictate what is morality... individual liberty means that the individual is responsible for his own sense of morality.

We believe that the future of our freedom depends on maintaining national sovereignty and oppose any effort by international organizations to assume governmental powers. ... strength should not be splintered by global commitments where we have no national interest.
Damn. Sounds oddly like some of Kerry's comments.

We believe that just as America should not extend her empire abroad, she should not colonize her own citizens through domestic programs that stifle responsibility and foster dependence.
You GO Pat!

We believe that Americans are overtaxed and over-regulated.
Shooooooooooot... why didn't we vote this guy in 2000?

We believe that the strength of our culture depends on the integrity of our families and support policies that affirm traditional marriage,
Oh... that might be why. There's a lot more to read. On the overall balance, there's a lot more for today's "liberal" (and lonely centrists like the Overlord) to support in these traditional aspects of pure age-old conservatism than one might think. And, oddly enough, while the current social neo-conservatives may pay lip-service to some of many of these items, their actual deeds reveal a far different stance. Interesting reading... digest and discuss.




posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Thanks, SO, for checking into this and sharing. We, the REAL Republicans appreciate it. Extreme party association tends to get either side making broad, sweeping and almost ALWAYS erroneous statements about the other side. In addition, just because one side decides to support a less than optimum candidant choice, who may have policies they are not 100% in line with, does not mean they are married to him - nor are they carbon copies of him - or the party for that matter. The current Republican party is not MY Republican party, nor is it anywhere close to the original Republican party and the philosophy.

I, as a TRUE Republican, stand for the following:

1. The smallest federal government possible;
2. Preserve the original constitution at all times;
3. States that are as autonomous as possible;
4. Minimal legislation (laws), and when it happens, it happens at the state level;
5. Optimumally, legislation at the state level is passed by referendum (by the people, not the state legislature);
6. Minimized government debt at all levels;
7. Pay as you go (NO deficit barring catastrophes);
8. A Judicial system that INTERPRETS the law, not makes it;
9. Protection of national sovereignty at all times;
10. Good stewardship to the world with even-handedness to all.

Now, with that said, there hasn't been a pure Republican run on the Republican ticket since I was born...so I would appreciate NOT being asked what I think about any given Republican politician/leader's actions, words, policies, etc and why they do this or that not in-line with the above...I have no answers. They all fall short of the glory of the philosophy!

[edit on 11-10-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Your right Val to get them ideas NOW you have to go to the Libertarians


We are the only party that stands for those ideals today and we only got 400,000 votes that ought to tell you where this country is headed

[edit on 10-11-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
SO, you know as well as I do that I am a strict constitutionalist, not as it has been twisted in the past few decades (interpreted is not the word), and that the Founding Father's intent is important to look at as well. This is important to know and understand for a couple reasons. If you don't know it yourself, you won't know when someone is lying to you to further their own agenda. Another reason is if you do not know where you come from, you won't know is you are on track.

SO, it seems that your major hangup with Pat is his stance on traditional morals. I see no problem with the traditional, Judeo-Christian morals as these are what we are founded on. That is the solid and unmoving rock upon which our culture is based, not on some shifting and ever-changing human opinion. Humans change with the wind, and we have the propensity to worsen as time goes by. We need a solid standard by which we calibrate our compasses. You know as well as I that this is not a theocracy and has never been one. The fact that it is the majority's will to protect traditional family and marriage does NOT mean that we have any desire to track down and kill those who are, in our minds, sinning. Want a good reason why that is our way of being? Simple, we ALL sin. If you start gunning down the sinners, when do you stop? This is the Church Age, when we are to reach out to the sinner and show him there is One who paid the price and made a way for all of us. If someone rejects the Good News, that is their choice and their right. That still does not mean that a Christian nation should change its values to accomodate the sinner who prefers to be an unrepentant sinner. WE have as much right not to have abominable acts shoved in our faces and taught to our children as the homosexual has the right to privacy in their home.

Pat's words might sound like Kerry's words in reference to national sovereignty, but remember, Kerry has two or three positions on everything. Kerry's strong words of national sovereignty came after years of words and actions that indicates he was blowing smoke up our collective skirts. I don't buy it at all. I doubt you do, either.

I don't know if you've really followed Pat very closely down through the years, but he can seem pretty lucid and sane for weeks on end, and then he'll demand the letter M be stricken from the alphabet (metaphorically speaking, for all you strictly speakers). I do not feel I could support him unless I knew he was on meds and would not stop taking them!



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I don't know if you've really followed Pat very closely down through the years, but he can seem pretty lucid and sane for weeks on end, and then he'll demand the letter M be stricken from the alphabet (metaphorically speaking, for all you strictly speakers). I do not feel I could support him unless I knew he was on meds and would not stop taking them!


I noticed that myself he ALMOST got my vote a couple elections ago but for that reason



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Thank you, TC. I'm ashamed of myself. I forgot to list one of the most important things of a TRUE Republican. It is now my #2. (original post above edited)

*
*



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I am a conservative above all else and even though I supported Bush this election there are many things he does that ticks me off. Of recent memory is his reckless determination to lax laws on immigration.




posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
The moral issues that have stained both parties need to be done away with on the federal level and the two parties get back to their pure foundations.

THEN, we would see a reckon-ordering take place in America!!!



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I, as a TRUE Republican, stand for the following:

1. The smallest federal government possible; etc.

I'm rather new to political discussions and not well-read in the background of the Republican Party. This is really what they used to be about


Sounds a whole lot like the Libertarians.

FWIW, is it possible to have a viable candidate with Val's values in this day and age? With all the spending and media hoopla?
As an example, ATS tried to present the issues without the candidates. It was a fabulous idea. But, the mud-slinging and rhetoric is what the folks craved...much like IRL.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
YES! That is EXACTLY the original difference between the two parties. The Republicans (originally known as the Democrats...lol) wanted a small, minimized federal government with the powers going to the states.

The Democrats (originally known as the Federalists) wanted a strong centralized federal government.

THAT was the main point.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Val, I think we are maing the mistake when we assume the Republican party has any intention of restoring the country to a proper and original constitutional republic. There has never been an indication of it doing this, not since Lincoln was blown away (and it is my belief that he was blown away because he was going to do just that!)

There is no party out there that gets it. Maybe I should say, there is no party out there that is allowed to get it as it should be. Sorry, the conspiracy mind coming out again. I can't help it, Cheney is the devil. I expect a pretzel incident any day now!



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
... and to the Republic, for which it stands ...

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne SO, it seems that your major hangup with Pat is his stance on traditional morals.
No... my hangup with Pat is the same as yours.
I have no issue with "traditional morality" as currently defined by the "social neo-conservative" winning half of the country... and can even tolerate individual states deciding gay marriage is bad for their state. But I really like the constitution also, and would not want to see federal mandates that attempt to decide the terms of my morality for me. If the majority of people in my state go one way -- okay, I can take that. But not interim federalist troublemakers... uh-uh.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
But not interim federalist troublemakers... uh-uh.


That would be the problem right there. Moral issues have no place on the national level...buggers to all who have created the current situation and draw the country's attention away from the fact that they should be choosing a leader on the following SOLE criteria:

How do I want my country ADMINISTRATED and who will be this ADMINISTRATOR for me?

A pox on all their houses.



[edit on 11-10-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne There has never been an indication of it doing this, not since Lincoln was blown away (and it is my belief that he was blown away because he was going to do just that!)
I agree. I've long thought that the murder of Lincoln marked the birth of "modern conspiracy" as we know it today. I kind of like "interim federalist troublemakers"... has a nice ring to it.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Bush and Kerry's stance on gay marriage isn't that much different, when you think about it. Kerry said he wants the states to decide (and they are), and thinks marriage should be between a man and women. (But as TC pointed out, Kerry has given different answers). Bush supports a constitutional amendment. Thats not all that much different than what Kerry thinks, as the states are very much involved in the amendment process. And, its getting to the point where there are quite a number of states supporting the ban that they could possibly amend the constitution on their own through a convention. Anyway, what was I talking about? Buchanan is an interesting individual and TC couldnt be more correct when it comes to Pat. And, Death of the West is a must read.

'interim federalist troublemakers', funniest thing I have heard in a long time.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   
But a constitutional amendment that narrowly defines one view of morality is a very bad thing. Leave it with the states, not the interim federalist troublemakers. Anyway... you're allowing yourself to get caught up in the gay marriage thing again!
The point of this thread, that many ATS members may not be aware, is that there is much for "current liberals" to consider and admire amongst the pure republican position of quasi-libertarians like Pat.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   
The states have a say in a constitutional amendment though, after the interim federalist troublemakers push it through the houses, it goes where? To the states.

We could leave it to the states and still come up with an amendment, abscent of interim federalist troublemakers.

Point taken, SO, Pat is a good read and someone for whom lots of common ground can be found. Again, 'Death of the West', people



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Concerning the gay-marriage, abortion, (or fill-in-the-blank moral issue de-jeur)...
LEAVE MY CONSTITUTION ALONE!!!

My constitution has only been used to prevent individual freedom (via an amendment) one time...and that amendment ended up getting repealed when everybody realized it shouldn't have been there in the first place...that, and there's a lot of commerce in liquor!

I will just weep in my beer the day my constitution is amended to restrict any individual...that is a STATE LEVEL ISSUE BASED ON THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN THE STATE. These things should have never been brought to the national level. BUT to clarify why they have arrived there...states have (by majority of voter) passed laws that the now-I've-lost-my-whole-reason-for-being-here-Supreme Court has knocked down as unconstitutional WHEN THEY ARE NOT...which leads to people thinking that the only way the majority of voters in a state can get their vote to count is to push it to the national level.

Some one needs to biotch-slap the Supreme Court and get them out of the state's powers, then re-educate the populace on the fundamental differences of the two major parties...and that will lead to us getting back to administrative issues on the national level.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I, as a TRUE Republican, stand for the following:

1. The smallest federal government possible;
2. Preserve the original constitution at all times;
3. States that are as autonomous as possible;
4. Minimal legislation (laws), and when it happens, it happens at the state level;
5. Optimumally, legislation at the state level is passed by referendum (by the people, not the state legislature);
6. Minimized government debt at all levels;
7. Pay as you go (NO deficit barring catastrophes);
8. A Judicial system that INTERPRETS the law, not makes it;
9. Protection of national sovereignty at all times;
10. Good stewardship to the world with even-handedness to all.



So, a Libertarian is just a true Republican that smokes marijuana?



Oh, and about gay marriage. I'm not gay, but I'm all for the gay marriage. I had an ex-roommate that was gay, and that cat faced a lot of discrimination. I don't understand why people don't understand that people of the same sex can love one another. You marry the person you love the most, right?

Why can't two women or two men join in union, with or without God?

[edit on 11/10/2004 by blackstar]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   
LOL!

A constitutional amendment to define a word!

While you are overtaxing marriage, and as a government being a larger third party to a marriage than the original two partners, you want to pass an amendment where "marriage is between a man and a woman."

Well what a great idea, as long as that eliminates the government as a third party to marriage!

In fact these issues of confined morality are too trivial by comparison to many exigencies, urgent necessity, that best describes what a nation faces.

Matters of public health are ignored. Why? Because you are too busy defining words, and wasting time arguing about abortion while doing nothing about it.

Vaccines are contaminated, depleted uranium is unleashed upon our military, fluoride contaminates our water and toothpaste, when it is known to be poisonous as even stated on the toothpaste tube!

Global warming is more complex than at first glance, but it is not a non existent thing nor of minor importance.

Drug companies continue to unleash drugs known to be harmful, ADHD is a false diagnosis done for federal money, our school lunches by huge agriculltural interests continue to even cause the hyperactivity in kids, and good food in schools is known to curb almost all anti-social behaviors.

Our schools do not teach, they make pupils into robotically obedient corporate lackeys. These things are done by design, and all we have is some simple minded issue of why people vote for President. The Treasury is being raided right now, and your children and childrens children will have to pay interest on that money forever. Our nation faces foreclosures and overpriced equity on real estate.

All we can do when we vote is listen to moral excuses of what is more important than everything else, gay marriage, and abortion.

Our freedoms are eroding right now, and eroding daily. Your churches tell you what the issues are, and you vote accordingly, regardless of what else is in your face.

It is too bad both democrats and republicans are both bogus, and our only choices.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by SkipShipman]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join