A Conservative Coalition

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
Now is the time for all good conservatives to come to the aid of your country. Never before have our challenges been such at to compel men to action, as the current administration and policies of its party. As we march nobly toward the 2012 elections, we embark on this process of nomination, to select our candidate. Conservatism has a very broad range of flavor, and certain elements tend to clash with each other in a volatile way, but we must remember who we are and what we share in common. We need not resolve internal disputes to unite behind a strong conservative economic message and platform.

This election is about fundamentals. Whether we are to be a liberal socialist state-run plutarchy, or a free enterprise pro-capitalist constitutional republic, as our founders intended. We can't do both, there is no 'moderate' view... this is clear.

We currently see the field of Republican candidates, and the general consensus is, no one is completely satisfied, everyone has problems with every candidate. Here's my quick list of the pros and cons of all..

--Romney--
PRO: Leadership skills
CON: Romenycare

--Perry--
PRO: Business/Jobs skills
CON: Texas Governor

--Bachmann--
PRO: True Blue Tea Party
CON: Lack of accomplishment as a leader.

--Cain--
PRO: Not a politician, a businessman
CON: No political experience, no foreign policy experience.

--Santorum--
PRO: Die Hard Conservative
CON: Also die hard SOCIAL conservative.

--Paul--
PRO: Small government Constitutionalist
CON: A bit too radical for mainstream.

--Gingrich--
PRO: Greatest conservative political thinker of our time.
CON: He's Newt Gingrich

--Hunstman--
PRO: Could pull some kook pinhead votes from Obama
CON: Too many to list.

--McCotter--
PRO: Intelligent, witty, and different.
CON: He's Thadeus McCotter

So, as you can see... each candidate has good and bad things about them, there is no way around that. I don't think the election rules will let us run the entire team of them as one.... and I don't think we can stick them in a blender and filter out all we don't like, and come up with the ultimate candidate smoothie. We're going to have to pick one.

During the process of picking, we are inundated by blatant and sometimes very subtle influences toward particular candidates, and it is important to remember that. We should support and vote for whomever represents our viewpoints most closely, that is our constitutional right and duty, in my opinion, and what this nomination process is all about. This is the time you let your voice be heard, and let the GOP know where you stand. Ultimately, we are going to end up with whichever of the above gets the most votes, and their platform will be largely determined by how the various candidates fare in the outcome. From what I have seen so far, any one of the Republican candidates could challenge this president, short of some miracle happening with the economy. One thing they all have in common, is a core conservative viewpoint, and this is important to remember for the general election. A good many of us will be disappointed our candidate didn't win, and we're going to have to get over it, to come together in the end. Or else, it just might well be The End.
 
Dixie said:
Now is the time for all good conservatives to come to the aid of your country. Never before have our challenges been such at to compel men to action, as the current administration and policies of its party. As we march nobly toward the 2012 elections, we embark on this process of nomination, to select our candidate. Conservatism has a very broad range of flavor, and certain elements tend to clash with each other in a volatile way, but we must remember who we are and what we share in common. We need not resolve internal disputes to unite behind a strong conservative economic message and platform.

This election is about fundamentals. Whether we are to be a liberal socialist state-run plutarchy, or a free enterprise pro-capitalist constitutional republic, as our founders intended. We can't do both, there is no 'moderate' view... this is clear.

We currently see the field of Republican candidates, and the general consensus is, no one is completely satisfied, everyone has problems with every candidate. Here's my quick list of the pros and cons of all..

--Romney--
PRO: Leadership skills
CON: Romenycare

--Perry--
PRO: Business/Jobs skills
CON: Texas Governor

--Bachmann--
PRO: True Blue Tea Party
CON: Lack of accomplishment as a leader.

--Cain--
PRO: Not a politician, a businessman
CON: No political experience, no foreign policy experience.

--Santorum--
PRO: Die Hard Conservative
CON: Also die hard SOCIAL conservative.

--Paul--
PRO: Small government Constitutionalist
CON: A bit too radical for mainstream.

--Gingrich--
PRO: Greatest conservative political thinker of our time.
CON: He's Newt Gingrich

--Hunstman--
PRO: Could pull some kook pinhead votes from Obama
CON: Too many to list.

--McCotter--
PRO: Intelligent, witty, and different.
CON: He's Thadeus McCotter

So, as you can see... each candidate has good and bad things about them, there is no way around that. I don't think the election rules will let us run the entire team of them as one.... and I don't think we can stick them in a blender and filter out all we don't like, and come up with the ultimate candidate smoothie. We're going to have to pick one.

During the process of picking, we are inundated by blatant and sometimes very subtle influences toward particular candidates, and it is important to remember that. We should support and vote for whomever represents our viewpoints most closely, that is our constitutional right and duty, in my opinion, and what this nomination process is all about. This is the time you let your voice be heard, and let the GOP know where you stand. Ultimately, we are going to end up with whichever of the above gets the most votes, and their platform will be largely determined by how the various candidates fare in the outcome. From what I have seen so far, any one of the Republican candidates could challenge this president, short of some miracle happening with the economy. One thing they all have in common, is a core conservative viewpoint, and this is important to remember for the general election. A good many of us will be disappointed our candidate didn't win, and we're going to have to get over it, to come together in the end. Or else, it just might well be The End.
Click to expand...

"This election is about fundamentals. Whether we are to be a liberal socialist state-run plutarchy, or a free enterprise pro-capitalist constitutional republic, as our founders intended."

Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. You have a flair for the dramatic. I highly recommend you read up on Socialism. If nothing else it will put your mind to rest. You'll see that no one is suggesting a Socialist run state. It is not only possible but highly preferable to help our fellow citizens while having a pro-capitalist government.

Take ObamaCare, for example. Capitalist systems operate on the idea one works hard and are rewarded for their efforts. Does being able to receive medical attention constitute a reward?

Most people realize a healthy population results in a better life for all due to the fact healthy people are able to contribute to society so access to medical care benefits everyone, not just the ill individual. The only possible counter argument is to allow the ill to suffer and not offer any help. Paying disability is a drain on all society so we either attempt to fix the problem or prevent it from occurring or not offer any assistance, at all.

The current problem is preventive medicine is not available to everyone and assistance is so meager all society does is maintain the problem. We neither attempt to prevent it nor correct it when it occurs. We sustain it by offering victims below subsistence income while denying solutions such as operations, counselling, etc. The die-hard capitalists, those who believe everything has to be earned/paid for end up cutting of their nose to spite their face, as the old saying goes. They grudgingly agree to compensation for the ill/poor but deny sufficient help to correct the problem.

I don't know if it'selfishness or jealousy or what it is. It's like they don't want to help someone "get back in the race" because that would be one more individual with whom they'd have to compete but getting that individual up and running would result in a productive citizen paying taxes and not taking from social services which would ultimately benefit the die-hard Capitalist.

Helping fellow citizens is not just the "decent" thing to do. It is the logical thing to do. It ultimately benefits everyone so pass this bill support ObamaCare

Opps. Got carried away there for a moment. :-)
 
Just because the Soviet Union's name was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, righties in America have used "socialism" as a code word to scare Americans. I have yet to meet an internet political board rightie who even KNEW what socialism really was. And, to them, it doesn't matter. The word is even MORE scary when you don't know what it means.

As far as the republican field, while it has always been the case that candidates run to the right or left during primaries to capture their base, and then run to the middle after getting the nomination, this year's crop of GOP candidates will have a more difficult path. THe existence - and apparent clout - of the totally wacko teabaggers forces the candidates to run so far to the right during the primaries that they might not be able to have enough time to move far enough back towards the middle to gain the moderate/independent vote.
 
beanerboy said:
Just because the Soviet Union's name was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, righties in America have used "socialism" as a code word to scare Americans. I have yet to meet an internet political board rightie who even KNEW what socialism really was. And, to them, it doesn't matter. The word is even MORE scary when you don't know what it means.

As far as the republican field, while it has always been the case that candidates run to the right or left during primaries to capture their base, and then run to the middle after getting the nomination, this year's crop of GOP candidates will have a more difficult path. THe existence - and apparent clout - of the totally wacko teabaggers forces the candidates to run so far to the right during the primaries that they might not be able to have enough time to move far enough back towards the middle to gain the moderate/independent vote.
Click to expand...

Nazism isn't the only form of Nationalism. Many nationalists claim that it's not actually nationalism. Marxist-Leninism, simialary, while springing from early radical revolutionary politics, bears little resemblance to modern democratic socialism.
 
so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is no debate about what "socialism" means, it's defined in the dictionary for us.

As any THINKING person can see, Obama policies fit the template of socialism like a glove. Now, you retarded people can flap around chortling nonsense all you like, it doesn't change what the facts are. Obama is a socialist, his policies are socialist policies, and the Democrat party is a socialist party. You advocate Marxist socialist policies with every breath you take, it's in your DNA... why deny that? Oh yeah, because you are all a bunch of lying dishonest scumbuckets who HAVE to lie to people in order to implement your socialist liberal Utopia and unleash socialist oppression on us all.
 
Dixie said:
Now is the time for all good conservatives to come to the aid of your country. Never before have our challenges been such at to compel men to action, as the current administration and policies of its party. As we march nobly toward the 2012 elections, we embark on this process of nomination, to select our candidate. Conservatism has a very broad range of flavor, and certain elements tend to clash with each other in a volatile way, but we must remember who we are and what we share in common. We need not resolve internal disputes to unite behind a strong conservative economic message and platform.

This election is about fundamentals. Whether we are to be a liberal socialist state-run plutarchy, or a free enterprise pro-capitalist constitutional republic, as our founders intended. We can't do both, there is no 'moderate' view... this is clear.

We currently see the field of Republican candidates, and the general consensus is, no one is completely satisfied, everyone has problems with every candidate. Here's my quick list of the pros and cons of all..

--Romney--
PRO: Leadership skills
CON: Romenycare

My take:
Pro: Business acumen
Con: Con Artist/Bland

--Perry--
PRO: Business/Jobs skills
CON: Texas Governor

My take:
Pro: None
Con: He's Rick Perry

--Bachmann--
PRO: True Blue Tea Party
CON: Lack of accomplishment as a leader.

My take:
Pro: She's a woman
Con: Dumber than dirt/ Mucho baggage

--Cain--
PRO: Not a politician, a businessman
CON: No political experience, no foreign policy experience.


My take:
Pro: He's black
Con: He's black/ Will say anything to pander


--Santorum--
PRO: Die Hard Conservative
CON: Also die hard SOCIAL conservative.

My take:
Pro: Can't think of any
Con: Looks like a Neanderthal/ Acts like a Neanderthal

--Paul--
PRO: Small government Constitutionalist
CON: A bit too radical for mainstream.

My take:
Pro: Anti-Washington-Beltway
Con: Has flashbacks from drug use during his hippie days

--Gingrich--
PRO: Greatest conservative political thinker of our time.
CON: He's Newt Gingrich

My take:
Pro: conservative intellectual/knowledgeable
Con: Out of touch with reality/ Problem with Appearances

--Hunstman--
PRO: Could pull some kook pinhead votes from Obama
CON: Too many to list.

My take:
Pro: Experienced in political and world circles
Con: Who? Nobody knows him, or cares.




--McCotter--
PRO: Intelligent, witty, and different.
CON: He's Thadeus McCotter

My take:
Pro: Who?
Con: Who?

.
Click to expand...

LOL.
 
Thanks for sending me a picture of your 'coalition'

0202-al-shabab-al-qaeda_full_600.jpg
 
Dixie said:
Obama policies fit the template of socialism like a glove...Obama is a socialist, his policies are socialist policies, and the Democrat party is a socialist party.
Click to expand...


Make a list of these "socialist policies"...or you will have surrendered like Lee at Appomattox, the first time Dixe lost. :igive:
 
\\(\()/)// said:
Make a list of these "socialist policies"...or you will have surrendered like Lee at Appomattox, the first time Dixe lost. :igive:
Click to expand...

It would be much easier for you to make a list of Obama policies that are NOT socialist. From what I can tell, pretty much every original policy he has had, is socialist. The ONLY policies he has implemented which weren't socialist, were the ones belonging to Bush which he extended.
 
Dixie said:
It would be much easier for you to make a list of Obama policies that are NOT socialist. From what I can tell, pretty much every original policy he has had, is socialist. The ONLY policies he has implemented which weren't socialist, were the ones belonging to Bush which he extended.
Click to expand...


You made the claim. Back it up. Make a list.


Otherwise, I accept your abject surrender. :igive:
 
Dixie said:
so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is no debate about what "socialism" means, it's defined in the dictionary for us.

As any THINKING person can see, Obama policies fit the template of socialism like a glove. Now, you retarded people can flap around chortling nonsense all you like, it doesn't change what the facts are. Obama is a socialist, his policies are socialist policies, and the Democrat party is a socialist party. You advocate Marxist socialist policies with every breath you take, it's in your DNA... why deny that? Oh yeah, because you are all a bunch of lying dishonest scumbuckets who HAVE to lie to people in order to implement your socialist liberal Utopia and unleash socialist oppression on us all.
Click to expand...

I have never EVER heard any democrat advocate the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

and neither have you. retard.
 
again... using the word socialism is just a scare tactic. No democrat is suggesting vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. WHere has Obama, or any other democrat, suggested the nationalization of industry, of farming, or banking, or land ownership? Nobody has ever tried to tell the owners of John Deere, for example (a company close to my heart) that they should cease to exist as a private entity and become an arm of the government? Nobody has suggested that all the Sears stores and Walmart's and Costco's become government run retail operations. Nobody has EVER suggested that farmers give up their land and cede ownership to the government. Nobody has ever said that we cannot own our own homes. No one has EVER said that community banks and savings and loans and credit unions cease to exist and that government control all the capital markets.

Conservatives are fine with government controlling some aspects of of society. But when liberals suggest expanding that list in small incremental ways - even though we NEVER call for complete government control of ALL aspects of our economy - which IS the definition of socialism - they still haul out the "S" word because it scares people.... disingenuous pricks.
 
beanerboy said:
I have never EVER heard any democrat advocate the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

and neither have you. retard.
Click to expand...

Hi, meet Dixie. He is an idiot, oh I see you alredy know.
 
I actually have been on boards with this moron DIxie for more than a decade.... he is just about as sick and twisted as a guy can get. and a shitty poet.
 
beanerboy said:
again... using the word socialism is just a scare tactic. No democrat is suggesting vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. WHere has Obama, or any other democrat, suggested the nationalization of industry, of farming, or banking, or land ownership? Nobody has ever tried to tell the owners of John Deere, for example (a company close to my heart) that they should cease to exist as a private entity and become an arm of the government? Nobody has suggested that all the Sears stores and Walmart's and Costco's become government run retail operations. Nobody has EVER suggested that farmers give up their land and cede ownership to the government. Nobody has ever said that we cannot own our own homes. No one has EVER said that community banks and savings and loans and credit unions cease to exist and that government control all the capital markets.

Conservatives are fine with government controlling some aspects of of society. But when liberals suggest expanding that list in small incremental ways - even though we NEVER call for complete government control of ALL aspects of our economy - which IS the definition of socialism - they still haul out the "S" word because it scares people.... disingenuous pricks.
Click to expand...

http://www.crispusattucksteaparty.com/

http://www.crispusattucksteaparty.com/node/118

It's totally astounding how the Communists Party USA attacks the Tea Party and supports Obama exactly, EXACTLY like the left wing, liberal pinheads on this site and of course Democrats in general.....

I'm blown away by this incredible, irrefutable fact....
 
all Irishmen are redheads does not mean that all redheads are Irishmen. Just because socialists see democrats as supporting more of their ideas does not mean that all democrats, or the democratic platform, is socialist. read the fucking definition of socialism. show me where Obama has called for the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. THAT is socialism. Democrats do NOT stand for that. sorry loser.
 
Here are some conservatives marching with the banner of Dixie.


Klu-Klux-Klan-with-Conderate-Flag.jpg
 
beanerboy said:
all Irishmen are redheads does not mean that all redheads are Irishmen. Just because socialists see democrats as supporting more of their ideas does not mean that all democrats, or the democratic platform, is socialist. read the fucking definition of socialism. show me where Obama has called for the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. THAT is socialism. Democrats do NOT stand for that. sorry loser.
Click to expand...

You must think there is only one degree of socialism.....

Do you think different shades of red, white and blue exist ?....its the same as socialism, its not the same all over the world....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top