Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Only Two

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,419
    Thanks
    933
    Thanked 422 Times in 380 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 100 Times in 87 Posts

    Default Only Two

    This article is an interesting read if you plow thru it:





    Over the years, the right in America has spent an enormous amount of time explaining why the left is violating the rules, rules often formulated and imposed by the left, as if proving this point will make the left vanish like a puff of smoke. The left has gone from triumph to triumph while the right congratulates itself on carefully documenting their hypocrisy regarding their own moral claims.


    The Right
    A History of Failure
    The Z Man
    May 30, 2021

    https://www.takimag.com/article/a-history-of-failure/

    For all of The Z Man’s verbiage every conservative with a public voice is guilty of two failures —— and only two:

    1. Failure to insist on repealing the 16th Amendment.

    2. Failure to insist on withdrawing from the United Nations.

    Progressives would disappear overnight without their pseudo moral authority holding them up.

    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    29,389
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 13,925 Times in 8,873 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,408 Times in 2,238 Posts

    Default

    How's this for irony, the 16th Amendment was introduced by a Republican President, proposed by a Republican Senator, and passed by a Republican Congress, and now supposedly not repealing the 16th Amendment is a failure of Republicans

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    83,183
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anchovies View Post
    How's this for irony, the 16th Amendment was introduced by a Republican President, proposed by a Republican Senator, and passed by a Republican Congress, and now supposedly not repealing the 16th Amendment is a failure of Republicans
    "Conservative" ≠ "Republican".

    Poor Anchovies.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    83,183
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    This article is an interesting read if you plow thru it
    Indeed. Thanks for posting it.

    "Whatever the left proposes is feverishly analyzed by conservatives to discern “real motives.” Further, it is always assumed that the left is driven by the same desires that would drive the right, if the roles were reversed.

    Over the years, the right in America has spent an enormous amount of time explaining why the left is violating the rules, rules often formulated and imposed by the left, as if proving this point will make the left vanish like a puff of smoke. The left has gone from triumph to triumph while the right congratulates itself on carefully documenting their hypocrisy regarding their own moral claims.

    Bourgeois objectivism is not just a defect of the Buckley crowd. It shaped the view of their right-wing critics as well. An example of this is from the former communications director for the 1992 Buchanan campaign. J.L. Woodruff wrote in to take issue with this post from last week. Specifically, he disagreed with the assertion that Sam Francis did not anticipate how the anarcho-tyranny would evolve."

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    29,389
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 13,925 Times in 8,873 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,408 Times in 2,238 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    "Conservative" ≠ "Republican".

    Poor Anchovies.
    Oh, so you agree that often cited supposed KKK Democrats of the past are not the Liberal Democrats of today, thanks, not often a MAGA militia admits the truth

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to archives For This Post:

    evince (06-04-2021)

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    83,183
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anchovies View Post
    Oh, so you agree that often cited supposed KKK Democrats of the past are not the Liberal Democrats of today, thanks, not often a MAGA militia admits the truth
    No, Anchovies. It's apparent that you neither read the cited article nor understood the OP.

    Poor Anchovies.

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    29,389
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 13,925 Times in 8,873 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,408 Times in 2,238 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    No, Anchovies. It's apparent that you neither read the cited article nor understood the OP.

    Poor Anchovies.
    Not true, if "Conservative ≠ Republican" is valid so is the opposite, you just admitted one of radio rhetoric's favorite talking points is bullshit

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to archives For This Post:

    evince (06-04-2021)

  10. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    83,183
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anchovies View Post
    Not true, if "Conservative ≠ Republican" is valid so is the opposite
    No, it's not, Anchovies. Non sequitur, Anchovies.

    You have the intellectual capacity of a retarded child, Anchovies.

    Poor Anchovies.

  11. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    9,538
    Thanks
    487
    Thanked 2,944 Times in 2,345 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 111 Times in 108 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Not true, if "Conservative ≠ Republican" is valid so is the opposite, you just admitted one of radio rhetoric's favorite talking points is bullshit
    You're a fucking imbecile. Robert byd and George Wallace would be democrats today if the filthy bastards were alive. They would have learned just like you democrats today have learned that the whip is in the words now not the strap. Democrats have so little regard for blacks that they elected a fucking moron that thinks Obama was the first clean and articulate one amongst them and that they aren't black if they don't vote for him. It's amazing to me that you can wipe your ass and not cause yourself more brain damage.

  12. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    83,183
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Poor Anchovies.

    The basic “Southern Strategy” myth, popularized by Kevin Phillips in the early 1970s, goes like this: under LBJ’s leadership, DEMOCRATS nobly and self-sacrificingly supported civil rights, giving an opening to opportunistic Republicans to crack the DEMOCRAT Solid South. Supposedly, following the support given by voters in some Deep South states to Goldwater in 1964, Nixon (a supporter of civil rights) developed a “Southern Strategy” to use "coded appeals" to southern whites, enabling him to win the 1968 election; and everything the GOP has accomplished since 1968 is "tainted" by a continuous reliance on that same alleged strategy to keep white southerners in the fold.

    Like most myths, the Southern Strategy myth has some kernels of truth to it.

    It’s true that LBJ changed his tune on civil rights in the Oval Office, and did so knowing that this would have costs to the party.

    It’s true that Nixon, like Republicans as far back as TR, had the dream of adding Southern support to his coalition, and dedicated a campaign strategy to doing so.

    It’s true that the South has, broadly speaking, been far more Republican since the late 60s than it was before.

    The reality is quite different from the myth.

    The truth, as a cursory examination of history convincingly demonstrates, is the opposite. The growth of GOP support among Southerners was steady and mostly gradual from 1928 to 2010, and was a natural outgrowth of the fact that Southerners were ideologically much more compatible with the Republican agenda than with the DEMOCRAT agenda.



    https://www.redstate.com/diary/dan_mclaughlin/2012/07/11/the-southern-strategy-myth-and-the-lost-majority/

  13. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,419
    Thanks
    933
    Thanked 422 Times in 380 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 100 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    For all of The Z Man’s verbiage every conservative with a public voice is guilty of two failures —— and only two:

    1. Failure to insist on repealing the 16th Amendment.

    2. Failure to insist on withdrawing from the United Nations.
    Press barons have been protecting the United Nations, i.e. the New World Order crowd, since 1945. That is the only prove I have that the United Nations engineered and paid for China Joe Biden’s theft —— and they did it with U.S. tax dollars.

    Joe Hoft does not mention the filthy thief in his brilliant exposé, but Biden was the U.N.’s best hope of advancing the globalist agenda beyond the point of no return.


    Members of some of the Democrat’s most connected non-profits met with UN officials before the 2020 election. Now the same groups are trying to derail the audits moving forward across the nation.

    What were Harri Hursti, Ph.D., election cybersecurity expert and computer scientist, and Elizabeth Howard, Esq., Cybersecurity and Elections Counsel at the radical Brennan Center for Justice in Manhattan, doing when they gave a briefing on election cybersecurity to a U.N. committee of international election observers in Washington, D.C., just three days before the U.S mid-term elections in 2018?

    XXXXX

    Why were Harri Hursti and Elizabeth Howard together, two-and-a-half years ago, briefing – not simply part of a panel discussion – but briefing a roomful of U.N. international election observers about election cybersecurity who, in three days’ time, were to travel across the U.S., collecting data about our mid-term elections for the U.N.?

    To try and answer that question, you need to have answers to two more questions first, who from within the United States during the Trump administration in 2018 brought in the U.N. to observe our mid-term elections and why did they come back in 2020 with COVID-19 raging, for still more “observation,” this time of our presidential elections on November 3, 2020?

    The U.N. committee in question is the OSCE PA / ODIHR chaired by Isabel Santos. This stands for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly / the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which “established a Limited Election Observation Mission (LEOM) to observe the 6 November 2018 mid-term congressional elections.”

    A report from the OSCE PA / ODIHR states it was invited in by the government of the United States of America. The U.S. Department of State out of “respect for its relevant international obligations and OSCE commitments,” stated its commitment to assisting this committee during an April 12, 2018 address to the U.N. Permanent Council in Vienna.

    Surprisingly, our own U.S. Mission to the OSCE reads right out of a globalist’s playbook, “The United States strongly supports the work of the OSCE and views it as the paramount instrument for building a region of stable, open societies in which every country lives at peace with its neighbors.”

    XXXXX

    This is very troubling to learn that the U.S. is supposed to comply with international standards for “democratic elections” established by this U.N. committee and that they review and even provide advice upon our own federal and states’ election laws.

    XXXXX

    The U.N. committee’s literature and its 2018 reports about U.S. elections are littered with the term “civil society” which, like the term “open society” should place you, who treasure and defend American sovereignty, on red alert.

    XXXXX

    It appears the OSCE PA regularly deploys these international “observer delegation[s] for election day observation” to all of OSCE’s participating nations, to make sure they are towing the U.N. line and conducting their democracies’ elections in a manner proscribed by and approved of by the U.N.

    Of course, we don’t have a democracy we, in the United States, we have a Constitutional Republic form of government, so take their advice with a large grain of salt or ignore it totally.

    The OSCE PA ODIHR 2018 reports seemed politely irritable with the fact that there is no federal entity that oversees U.S. elections and that, instead, as per our Constitution, the states each administer the collective 10,500 or so U.S. jurisdictions. In addition, the lack of procedural uniformity in elections, from one central source, clearly disturbed this U.N. group.

    XXXXX

    The observers, called interlocutors by the U.N., many socialist-leaning themselves, have been influenced, almost exclusively so, by Democrats, and their socialist and communist allies from within the United States.

    XXXXX

    Officially, it was the United States Mission to the OSCE which invited in this U.N. team, backed by the Department of State. Buried within the reports, however, you find that it was two nonprofits that were singled out for special thanks by ODIHR in the text of the report: the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) [includes traitors John Kerry & Hillary Clinton] and the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED). The only other entity singled out for thanks was the Dept. of State.

    XXXXX

    It is troubling and, in fact, shocking to find out, given the extreme partisanship, out-and-out corruption, and even possible criminal behavior of certain secretaries of state and election officials which we are seeing revealed, post the 2020 election, that it was NASS, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit “trade group” for secretaries of state (SoS) and NASED, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit “trade group” for election officials which appear to be the driving forces behind U.N. interlocutors, as they are called by the U.N.

    These foreigners from the U.N., with a far-left bias, were inside our country’s borders, intimately examining our election systems, our election laws, our election equipment, our election cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and our actual elections!

    XXXXX

    What sort of corruption, influence peddling, and deal-making took place between the NASS, the NASED, and the U.N.’s OSCE PA / ODIHR, and what did they do that wasn’t reported on? Within 24 hours we will provide a follow-up to this article with more shocking news.


    BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Democrat Non-Profits and Secret State Election Groups Met with the UN to Discuss 2020 Election Cybersecurity – Now Same Groups Are Working Against State Audits
    By Joe Hoft
    Published June 4, 2021 at 9:00am

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...-working-stat/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •