Liberals, and so called "others" say they hate... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Liberals, and so called "others" say they hate...


countrygun
06-20-2012, 09:52
....Sean Hannity but I think a lot of them must read his work. Oddly I am not a fan of the gentleman but this might change. I had never seen his book "Conservative Victory" until i ran across it at a used bookstore yesterday. Imagine my surprise when I found the following in the introduction. I have highlited parts that appear to have been taken to heart by some nefarious Obama fans'

I have held much the same opinion as Hannity without being aware of his position. Oddly he wrote that book at the end of Obama's first year in office.

 

Sean Hannity

"Conservative Victory" 2010.

ppg 7-8

"Take for example, the talk of starting a third party.

It's an understandable impulse: Conservative Americans have been frustrated for years by the Republican establishment's inability to get the economy-and Washington-moving in the right direction.

But if all this anger should result in the formation of a third party, the conservative vote could splinter so badly that the White House ends up being delivered back to Obama, however unpopular he has become and however clearly his policies have failed. Yes, the leadership of the Republican Party has often been diasappointing- spending too much when in power, and failing to oppose Democrats effectively when out of power. But we all agree than any Republican leadership is vastly superior to the disastrous Democratic policies we've seen in just the first year of Obama's presidency. The differences between the parties are differences in kind, not just degree. And, while the GOP needs to improve it's performance, we cannot lose sight of the first priority-to direct the party back to it's conservative roots.

We cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

This is not to say we'll compromise our principles. We are conservatives; we know what we stand for; and we all realize that the fate of our nation hangs in the balance. But it is to say that our best chance to impliment policies that are consistant with our principles is to revitalize the Republican Party. To break off into a third party would fracture the conservative movement, leading to years of infighting about policy. It would force millions of Americans to decide whether to stay with the party that historically shared their principles, or to abandon it for an organization who's future would be uncertain at best. And it would guarantee Obama reelection."

It strikes me as altogether reasonable to think that the folks who want to see Obama reelected have remembered the number two rule of winning an election ( Number one being "get votes") "take votes away from a viable opponent". I

If one carefully examines the Ron Paul camp and dissects their arguments it should be glaringly obvious that there is a huge difference in the value system of the "Paulite movemnt" and traditional American Conservatism. The Paulites decry the values of Conservative America and rail at the choice delivered by the Primary process but what do they offer as an alternative? Not another conservative, perhaps more conservative than Romney, no, they claim the only alternative to Romney is abandoning the values of conservatism-"throw the principles out with the candidate-reject Romney AND conservative values in one fell swoop."

It is obvious to see that the "Libertarians/Paulites and their ilk put forth monolouges designed to make conservatives defend or doubt conservative values. Isn't that strangely like the job of the Democrats? Seems to me there is more overlap between the Democrats and the Paulites than there is between the Paulites and conservative Republicans and it seems like, by dividing the conservative vote they would be doing the job of liberals and not conservatives.

As it sits today the Paulite movement has crippled itself but don't be surprised if it makes a swift recovery, shored up by the publicity it gets for it's threatened circus, in time to try and influence the General Election.

 

 

The Machinist
06-20-2012, 10:07
You really shouldn't be losing so much sleep over Ron Paul. Believe me, I don't lose a minute's sleep over Mittens.

countrygun
06-20-2012, 14:28
You really shouldn't be losing so much sleep over Ron Paul. Believe me, I don't lose a minute's sleep over Mittens.


If it doesn't bother you too much, I will continue to worry about my Country.

The Machinist
06-20-2012, 15:07
If it doesn't bother you too much, I will continue to worry about my Country.
You'll worry about it, but you wouldn't dare vote for anyone with the sack to actually try and fix it.

Ruble Noon
06-20-2012, 15:18
I will continue to worry about my Country.

I don't believe it. If you were truly worried about your country you wouldn't be supporting a gun banning socialized medicine liberal progressive that longed to be in Vietnam.

hogfish
06-20-2012, 15:49
THE PARTY is everything. :bowdown:

:faint:

G29Reload
06-20-2012, 15:52
Firing Obama is everything.

countrygun
06-20-2012, 15:55
I don't believe it. If you were truly worried about your country you wouldn't be supporting a gun banning socialized medicine liberal progressive that longed to be in Vietnam.


As opposed to keeping in office the man who knew about "Fast & Furious", which wasn't at all designed to track Mexican drug runners, but to give the American gun industry and buyers a black eye?

You want to talk about "socialized medicine" when it is clear that anything but a vote for Romney puts Obama back in office?

You want to talk about a "liberal progressive" when anything but a vote for Romney puts Obama back in office?

I don't know for sure how Romney will act concerning guns, but I am sure how Obama and his minions have acted. Not even through legislation but through and underhanded scheme that got a US LEO killed. Romney has to be better than that.

There ARE other issues in case you didn't notice, (or in case you are just trying to scare folks on a gun forum) and Obama comes up well short on them an Ron Paul isn't far behind him.

Voting for anybody but Romney will put Obama in the White House and that is obvious. Another four-years of that and worrying about a gun control issue will be like worrying about scratched paint on the Titanic.

ron Paul is nothing more than a shill to divide the conservative vote and put Obama back in office. either you are being used or you are one of the users in the scheme if you are still beating that broken drum.

GAFinch
06-20-2012, 18:40
I've never understood how Paulites can call themselves conservative but almost universally hate Hannity.

countrygun
06-20-2012, 18:58
I've never understood how Paulites can call themselves conservative but almost universally hate Hannity.


Maybe because his book predicted the Paulite attempt to split up conservatives?

Follow the bouncing ball.

"We are conservatives too. We want Obama out."

'We have a candidate that we call conservative, you can too if you let go of your conservative principles because we are redefining the term to fit our candidate"

"You don't like our candidate and our new definition of "conservatism"? well phooey on you, we'll just put Obama back in".

And they really think they are fooling people.

Pretty much what Hannity predicted a third party would accomplish. No wonder they hate him.

The Machinist
06-20-2012, 19:43
Wow. You're going to willingly roll over for a New England liberal stooge, and then lecture the rest of us on conservative principles? You're no conservative at all. You're a fraud. You pitched your principles right out the window when you sided with the gun-banning creator of obamacare. Voting for liberals makes you no better than them.

Ruble Noon
06-20-2012, 19:44
"We are conservatives too. We want Obama out."

'We have a candidate that we call conservative, you can too if you let go of your conservative principles because we are redefining the term to fit our candidate"

"You don't like our candidate and our new definition of "conservatism"? .

I believe you are talking about Romney and his supporters.

G29Reload
06-20-2012, 19:52
The only thing that matters right now is FIRING OBAMA.

Otherwise, the country puts the imprimatur of approval on his actions, and it will only get worse.

There is only one way to fire Obama since no one has the guts to impeach him.

Stubudd
06-20-2012, 20:08
guy is running away with the record for most nonsense posted in the least amount of time

hannity was telling the tea party to get back in line for 2010 and be proper little sheep for the establishment and stop all this nonsense about trying to make republicans actually be real conservatives, not "predicting paulites splitting the vote" or whatever nonsense you're rambling

you don't have any real principles or you'd be much more worried about a lying liberal being your nominee than what any paulites are doing

that part about rejecting romney and his conservative values was hilarious

countrygun
06-20-2012, 20:58
guy is running away with the record for most nonsense posted in the least amount of time




Don't worry your lead is safe. I apparently am much more distracted with posting in the gun forums here rather than just worrying about the PI section. with yor single minded determination I don't think I have a chance of catching up in that department. You win.

Fed Five Oh
06-20-2012, 21:49
Voting for liberals makes you no better than them.But a ronulan voting for 0bama is great American?

The Machinist
06-20-2012, 22:01
But a ronulan voting for 0bama is great American?
Not in my book. And I'm not voting for Obama. I have never, and will never vote for anyone who thinks liberty is just a bargaining chip.

G19G20
06-22-2012, 15:28
I've never understood how Paulites can call themselves conservative but almost universally hate Hannity.

Really? You must have missed the whole "non-intervention" part of the Paul platform. A part which is of great importance to us. Hannity is the exact opposite and calls for intervention and war whenever he gets the chance. Why would we like someone that we are diametrically opposed to on one of our biggest policy planks?

Here's another reason:

We cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

This is not to say we'll compromise our principles.

Nice doublespeak!

Umm yeah Sean, that's exactly what you're doing when you "settle" for a candidate, particularly one with the weakest conservative credentials of any Republican candidate in recent history.

The OPs rant is pretty funny though since Paulites are standing up for traditional conservatism. Small gov't, liberty, following the constitution, low taxes, low spending, non-intervention, and state's rights. What's not conservative about those goals?

janice6
06-22-2012, 15:37
My friend manages PAC funds for an organization he used to work for. He is a staunch DEM.

He bad mouths Obama every chance he gets. He swears he will not vote for him but askes I do not broadcast his feelings.

Many people are discouraged.

lancesorbenson
06-22-2012, 16:06
I've never understood how Paulites can call themselves conservative but almost universally hate Hannity.

I agree with Hannity ~80% of the time. I still think he's a dewshbag chickenhawk. Aside from his views on foreign policy and his constant reinforcement of the bogus left-right paradigm, he's generally right on the issues. That said I think forming your political philosophy based on the rantings of any radio host is pretty bizarre.

countrygun
06-22-2012, 16:07
Really? You must have missed the whole "non-intervention" part of the Paul platform. A part which is of great importance to us. Hannity is the exact opposite and calls for intervention and war whenever he gets the chance. Why would we like someone that we are diametrically opposed to on one of our biggest policy planks?

Here's another reason:
[/I]

Nice doublespeak!

Umm yeah Sean, that's exactly what you're doing when you "settle" for a candidate, particularly one with the weakest conservative credentials of any Republican candidate in recent history.

The OPs rant is pretty funny though since Paulites are standing up for traditional conservatism. Small gov't, liberty, following the constitution, low taxes, low spending, non-intervention, and state's rights. What's not conservative about those goals?


And you leave the option of sticking to a candidate that has no chance of winning and thereby giving the White House to someone that that shares almost nothing with Conservatives, and nothing with Libertarians (or so they say) Thus fufilling Hannity's prediction.

From where I stand a lot of "traditional Conservatives" are anti drug legalization, anti abortion, for a strong military presence in the world, and strong borders. They know those things cost

Just coming up with a new party and CLAIMING it represents "Conservatives" doesn't make it so. It is just a tool being used in an attempt to marginalize traditional Conservatives.

The Paulites only exist as a devisive tool to split the Republican/Conservative Party by cherrypicking issues.

countrygun
06-22-2012, 16:10
I agree with Hannity ~80% of the time. I still think he's a dewshbag chickenhawk. Aside from his views on foreign policy and his constant reinforcement of the bogus left-right paradigm, he's generally right on the issues. That said I think forming your political philosophy based on the rantings of any radio host is pretty bizarre.


If you read my post then I am sure you aren't speaking to me about forming political opinions. Like you I agree with a lot of what he says and I just noticed, as I said, a remarkable "prediction" if you will, in the introduction to his book-nothing more.

lancesorbenson
06-22-2012, 16:28
If you read my post then I am sure you aren't speaking to me about forming political opinions. Like you I agree with a lot of what he says and I just noticed, as I said, a remarkable "prediction" if you will, in the introduction to his book-nothing more.

The Republican party has been in trouble for years. It's been drifting away from small government principles in the name of policing the world for 11 years now and a good chunk of conservatives instinctively understand that that view is incongruous with real small government and limited spending. Bush Sr. paved the way when he reneged on his famous no new taxes pledge, then his boy spent like a drunken sailor in the name of national security. The Republican party's move away from what I consider real conservatism is perfectly embodied by their two most recent presidential nominees.

I also find it funny that I'm frequently called a liberal for supporting Ron Paul. People who know me would never call me a liberal but anonymous message board folks like yourself have no problem assigning me that label. I'm radically pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, pro-small business, etc. but somehow I'm a liberal because I refuse to vote for a candidate I personally don't trust to lead with conservative values. I know, I know, I'm just an unwitting pawn in some great liberal conspiracy to divide the Republican party.

nmk
06-22-2012, 16:28
I'm excited for the election to be over...

countrygun
06-22-2012, 16:56
The Republican party has been in trouble for years. It's been drifting away from small government principles in the name of policing the world for 11 years now and a good chunk of conservatives instinctively understand that that view is incongruous with real small government and limited spending. Bush Sr. paved the way when he reneged on his famous no new taxes pledge, then his boy spent like a drunken sailor in the name of national security. The Republican party's move away from what I consider real conservatism is perfectly embodied by their two most recent presidential nominees.

I also find it funny that I'm frequently called a liberal for supporting Ron Paul. People who know me would never call me a liberal but anonymous message board folks like yourself have no problem assigning me that label. I'm radically pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, pro-small business, etc. but somehow I'm a liberal because I refuse to vote for a candidate I personally don't trust to lead with conservative values. I know, I know, I'm just an unwitting pawn in some great liberal conspiracy to divide the Republican party.

I am quite confused about this mythos. Having grown up in an earlier time, I was witness to the Democrats starting a war and then dumping it in the lap of the Republicans and yet seeing the protesters complaining that Republicans were the party of "Big Government" and they were "The Man" oppressing people. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan that I can recall a Republican calling for smaller Government, Great as he was, he was only one President and he certainly wasn't a non-interventionist. Granted that Democrats have generally expanded Government in the lives of Americans (Roosevelt II notably) but I don't remember "Smaller Government" as a Republican war cry. Not that many didn't believe in the idea,and it being a result of rejecting Democratic expansion, but I think it being a long time Republican goal is romanticizing a bit to validate the Libertarian movement.

For better or worse I remember Republicans and Democrats arguing over the direction , the large Government should take, a lot more than the size.
Take the "War on Drugs" which people lay in the laps of Conservatives. Is that a feature of "Small Government"?
Was even Reagan's "Star Wars" program a product of small Government and non intervention?

I don't remember the "Republican Party" that Libertarians claim to be taking the reins from. I think there is A LOT to many of the values supposedly espoused by the Libertarians, but I think they are trying to build this relationship to the Republican Party on a myth.

G19G20
06-22-2012, 18:53
And you leave the option of sticking to a candidate that has no chance of winning and thereby giving the White House to someone that that shares almost nothing with Conservatives, and nothing with Libertarians (or so they say) Thus fufilling Hannity's prediction.

He's still contradicting himself. It's Hannity's job to reinforce the "lesser of evils" nonsense. Sold to you!


From where I stand a lot of "traditional Conservatives" are anti drug legalization, anti abortion, for a strong military presence in the world, and strong borders. They know those things cost

Im sorry but religious social issue obsessed warhawks aren't the only conservatives in the USA. Yall seem to think they are but you're dead wrong. And historically, the Republican Party was much more non-interventionist because you can't have humongous military yet small government. My own grandparents were southern Methodist conservatives and they were staunchly against military interventionism. I'll defer to them long before I defer to you on the topic of traditional conservatism. GWB got elected on Ron Paul's foreign policy FFS! After 9/11 you all completely forgot what conservative foreign policy even is. It's NOT what we have today. But obviously Hannity has effectively brainwashed that out of you....


Just coming up with a new party and CLAIMING it represents "Conservatives" doesn't make it so. It is just a tool being used in an attempt to marginalize traditional Conservatives.

See above. You wouldn't know old right policy if it bit you.


The Paulites only exist as a devisive tool to split the Republican/Conservative Party by cherrypicking issues.

The Republican Party is splitting itself since it's forgotten what being conservative means and forgotten its "big tent" and forgotten how to nominate decent candidates. In case you missed it, there's a huge anti-establishment sentiment going on around the country and it's not just Paulites. Though I do appreciate you putting so much weight on what we do as having an outsized influence in the process. Flattering really. One minute we're irrelevant, next minute we're kingmakers.

countrygun
06-22-2012, 19:42
He's still contradicting himself. It's Hannity's job to reinforce the "lesser of evils" nonsense. Sold to you!



Im sorry but religious social issue obsessed warhawks aren't the only conservatives in the USA. Yall seem to think they are but you're dead wrong. And historically, the Republican Party was much more non-interventionist because you can't have humongous military yet small government. My own grandparents were southern Methodist conservatives and they were staunchly against military interventionism.

Your Grandparents were Southern Methodist Republicans?
Perhaps the anti-interventionism was more religious than political. were they also pro drug legalization and pro abortion?


I'll defer to them long before I defer to you on the topic of traditional conservatism. GWB got elected on Ron Paul's foreign policy FFS! After 9/11 you all completely forgot what conservative foreign policy even is. It's NOT what we have today. But obviously Hannity has effectively brainwashed that out of you....

Republicans also forgot it after Pearl Harbor too, they ae funny that way



See above. You wouldn't know old right policy if it bit you.

Know it? I lived it. I grew up in a staunchly Republican politically active family. Many years before you were born or could spell "politics" and I majored in Political Science, probably still before you were born (juding from what I've seen from you) so I think I have a very good handle on "old right policy" thank you.



The Republican Party is splitting itself since it's forgotten what being conservative means and forgotten its "big tent" and forgotten how to nominate decent candidates. In case you missed it, there's a huge anti-establishment sentiment going on around the country and it's not just Paulites. Though I do appreciate you putting so much weight on what we do as having an outsized influence in the process. Flattering really. One minute we're irrelevant, next minute we're kingmakers.

The flattery is self generated on your part, unless you would like to take credit for "making" Obama?







Your problem is you are too idealistic (which gives me an idea of your age). The American political system is not a "Zero-sum" game It changes in incriments as it was designed to. Goverments that massively change directions every 4 or 8 years are called (rightfully) "unstable" and do not have a history of great acheivements or freedoms.

I have mentioned that several of the Libertarian "planks" would have been worth including in the Republican platform, if Ron Paul had used the opportunity to do so, which is part of the function of the primary sytem: the development of a cohesive platform incorperating the ideas of different parts of the Party. Paulites decided it was their way or no way. Paul now has very little to bargain with in the formation of Republican policy. It is a pity and I have never said otherwise.

If you knew 1/2 as much about the political system as you think you do. You would be just as mad at the Paulites for marginalizing their contributions by refusing to cooperate within the Republican Party, as I am.

If you knew 1/2 as much about the political system as you think you do, you would also know that Ron Paul as a president on his own could not do 1/2 the things expected in our system.

My very first post in a thread on the subject started with saying that it was a pity Ron Paul threw away the best chance to influence the political landscape of America that I have ever seen a, basically, 3rd party candidate have.

I could give you another history lesson, besides Perot, from my lifetime, but I fear it would be wasted on you.

walt cowan
06-23-2012, 16:02
I've never understood how Paulites can call themselves conservative but almost universally hate Hannity.

most folks hate "sell-outs". paulites conservatives HAVE NOTHING to do with it.