Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What great American do we celebrate today?

Sherp,

unlike some I see the proper order as

God: first,

Country: second.

Political Party: way down the list.

I've declared that I am a constitutional Conservative, late of the republican party............

Jest fer schitz N giggles.

Republicans vs Conservatives
Sun, 05/17/2009 - 1:45pm | posted by Dr. John Killian

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/republicans-vs-conservatives

In a recent conversation with a local Pastor, a social/moral issue rose and the man said I know how strong you will be,on that issue, since you are one of the most Republican people I know. Let me stop at his statement and draw two conclusions from his statement:


1) This informed citizen identifies social conservatism with the GOP

2) This educated individual would identify my perceived conservative views as being strongly Republican.

This conversation came at a point when I have personally decided that I do not wish to be identified with the Republican Party. In recent months, this writer has refused requests to be involved with like-minded people, who are banding together under the GOP banner. My preferred political identification would be conservative, or even better, Constitutionalist. Consider the differences between a Republican and a conservative.

A Republican is pro-business, while a conservative is pro-free enterprise. What is the difference? A Republican would support bailing out corporations, at taxpayers� expense. Take note of GOP support of the Chrysler bailout and the TARP bailout. A conservative really does believe in allowing the free market to run unhindered.
A Republican believes that the Federal Government should solve the problems of education, supports funding the Department of Education, and believes that the No Child Left Behind debacle is a compassionate move for government. A conservative believes that the federal government has no role in education. We agree with Ronald Reagan that the Federal Department of Education should be abolished and control returned to the local level.
A Republican believes that the national military should intervene when favorable to American-based international corporations. A conservative believes that international corporations become so at their own risk and should not ask taxpayers to pay for their international expansions.
A Republican thinks that federal grants are good for business, but welfare problems cause lack of initiative on part of the recipients. Corporate welfare and TARP bailouts are good, but giveaway programs are bad, according to Republicans. Conservatives want to see free enterprise work.
In the name of free trade, Republicans support NAFTA and GATT which put the force of the Federal Government in support of sending manufacturing jobs overseas. Conservatives want real free trade, but don�t want the meddling of NAFTA and GATT which create bureacracies to manage trade. As a result, most conservatives don�t trust the so-called free trade agreements, especially when they surrender national sovereignty to foreign entities and create a superhighway for foreign trucks.
Republicans are proud of their Congressmen bringing home federal pork contracts, while conservatives are disgusted at the abuse of Congressional power to direct funds and spend money that should have originated and been directed from the private sector.
Republicans will support a liberal Republican because it�s good for the Party. Conservatives will never support a liberal, because it�s bad for the country. In recent days, liberal Republican Florida Gov. Charles Crist has announced for US Senate. Crist was a supporter of the Obama stimulus package. The Conservative Republican Speaker of the House Rubio was already running for this seat, but the National GOP establishment is already behind Crist, thinking he can win the election.
Republicans support an open-borders immigration policy as good for business, due to the cheap labor of illegal immigrants. Conservatives want the borders honored and protected.

This writer�s closest friend from childhood is a liberal Democrat. This gentleman made a statement that the conservatism of the Bush Administration had failed. My friend further stated that this is why the country turned toward the liberalism of the Obama Administration. My response was that conservatism had not failed, conservatism was not tried. The Bush Administration saw a vast increase in the size of government and a doubling of the Federal Debt. No conservative can complain about Obama�s socialism without honestly realizing that the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress paved the way with their Medicare program, No Child Left Behind, and, worst of all, the TARP bailout.

Remember, Richard Nixon expanded government with the creation of new Federal agencies,wage and price controls, a guaranteed minimum income, and new levels of federal controls.

In our lifetime, we have had one President who talked about rolling back the size of federal government. President Reagan set out to challenge the size of the Federal Government, but sadly lost much of his battle. Nonetheless, the Reagan-era decreasing of the size of government and the cutting of tax rates led to the greatest growth in our economy in American history. But succeeding generations of Republicans have repudiated Reaganism, preferring instead the silliness ofCompassionate Conservatism, whatever that is. True conservatives know that government is wooden, non-emotional, and makes policy based on principles, not ooshy-gooshy feelings of any sort. While Reagan won record landslides, the so-called Compassionate Conservatives were swept aside in the landslide of 2008.

Learn the following lessons:

Republicans win when they stand for conservative principles. When they offer a milquetoast version of big government, people opt for the real thing and vote Democratic.
Conservatives should never trust a Party�any Party� to fight our battles. We should live by principle and realize that parties are only vehicles to further our agenda.
Conservatives should never, never give one thin dime to the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or any other national GOP office. We should direct our contributions to conservative groups and let the country club establishment support the liberal Republicans. When the national GOP groups call for money, remind them that you are no longer supporting the GOP until they become the party of Reagan again.

Forgive my anger, but from the time of Reagan, most conservatives have identified themselves as Republicans. This article is not an advocacy of a third party. This article simply says that we need to think of ourselves first as conservatives. Our loyalty to Party should be far down the line, if found at all.



You've declared your undying fealty to the Federal government.

What if the federal government (both houses of congress and president's signature) declared a one child policy such as in communist China.

What if the federal goverment passed legislation that required you must turn in all your fire-arms or face felony charges.

What if the federal governmend passed legislation that required you surrender 50% of your gross pay?

Best,

GWB

Sherp,

unlike some I see the proper order as

God: first,

Country: second.

Political Party: way down the list.

I've declared that I am a constitutional Conservative, late of the republican party............

Jest fer schitz N giggles.

Republicans vs Conservatives
Sun, 05/17/2009 - 1:45pm | posted by Dr. John Killian

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/republicans-vs-conservatives

In a recent conversation with a local Pastor, a social/moral issue rose and the man said I know how strong you will be,on that issue, since you are one of the most Republican people I know. Let me stop at his statement and draw two conclusions from his statement:


1) This informed citizen identifies social conservatism with the GOP

2) This educated individual would identify my perceived conservative views as being strongly Republican.

This conversation came at a point when I have personally decided that I do not wish to be identified with the Republican Party. In recent months, this writer has refused requests to be involved with like-minded people, who are banding together under the GOP banner. My preferred political identification would be conservative, or even better, Constitutionalist. Consider the differences between a Republican and a conservative.

A Republican is pro-business, while a conservative is pro-free enterprise. What is the difference? A Republican would support bailing out corporations, at taxpayers� expense. Take note of GOP support of the Chrysler bailout and the TARP bailout. A conservative really does believe in allowing the free market to run unhindered.
A Republican believes that the Federal Government should solve the problems of education, supports funding the Department of Education, and believes that the No Child Left Behind debacle is a compassionate move for government. A conservative believes that the federal government has no role in education. We agree with Ronald Reagan that the Federal Department of Education should be abolished and control returned to the local level.
A Republican believes that the national military should intervene when favorable to American-based international corporations. A conservative believes that international corporations become so at their own risk and should not ask taxpayers to pay for their international expansions.
A Republican thinks that federal grants are good for business, but welfare problems cause lack of initiative on part of the recipients. Corporate welfare and TARP bailouts are good, but giveaway programs are bad, according to Republicans. Conservatives want to see free enterprise work.
In the name of free trade, Republicans support NAFTA and GATT which put the force of the Federal Government in support of sending manufacturing jobs overseas. Conservatives want real free trade, but don�t want the meddling of NAFTA and GATT which create bureacracies to manage trade. As a result, most conservatives don�t trust the so-called free trade agreements, especially when they surrender national sovereignty to foreign entities and create a superhighway for foreign trucks.
Republicans are proud of their Congressmen bringing home federal pork contracts, while conservatives are disgusted at the abuse of Congressional power to direct funds and spend money that should have originated and been directed from the private sector.
Republicans will support a liberal Republican because it�s good for the Party. Conservatives will never support a liberal, because it�s bad for the country. In recent days, liberal Republican Florida Gov. Charles Crist has announced for US Senate. Crist was a supporter of the Obama stimulus package. The Conservative Republican Speaker of the House Rubio was already running for this seat, but the National GOP establishment is already behind Crist, thinking he can win the election.
Republicans support an open-borders immigration policy as good for business, due to the cheap labor of illegal immigrants. Conservatives want the borders honored and protected.

This writer�s closest friend from childhood is a liberal Democrat. This gentleman made a statement that the conservatism of the Bush Administration had failed. My friend further stated that this is why the country turned toward the liberalism of the Obama Administration. My response was that conservatism had not failed, conservatism was not tried. The Bush Administration saw a vast increase in the size of government and a doubling of the Federal Debt. No conservative can complain about Obama�s socialism without honestly realizing that the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress paved the way with their Medicare program, No Child Left Behind, and, worst of all, the TARP bailout.

Remember, Richard Nixon expanded government with the creation of new Federal agencies,wage and price controls, a guaranteed minimum income, and new levels of federal controls.

In our lifetime, we have had one President who talked about rolling back the size of federal government. President Reagan set out to challenge the size of the Federal Government, but sadly lost much of his battle. Nonetheless, the Reagan-era decreasing of the size of government and the cutting of tax rates led to the greatest growth in our economy in American history. But succeeding generations of Republicans have repudiated Reaganism, preferring instead the silliness ofCompassionate Conservatism, whatever that is. True conservatives know that government is wooden, non-emotional, and makes policy based on principles, not ooshy-gooshy feelings of any sort. While Reagan won record landslides, the so-called Compassionate Conservatives were swept aside in the landslide of 2008.

Learn the following lessons:

Republicans win when they stand for conservative principles. When they offer a milquetoast version of big government, people opt for the real thing and vote Democratic.
Conservatives should never trust a Party�any Party� to fight our battles. We should live by principle and realize that parties are only vehicles to further our agenda.
Conservatives should never, never give one thin dime to the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or any other national GOP office. We should direct our contributions to conservative groups and let the country club establishment support the liberal Republicans. When the national GOP groups call for money, remind them that you are no longer supporting the GOP until they become the party of Reagan again.

Forgive my anger, but from the time of Reagan, most conservatives have identified themselves as Republicans. This article is not an advocacy of a third party. This article simply says that we need to think of ourselves first as conservatives. Our loyalty to Party should be far down the line, if found at all.



You've declared your undying fealty to the Federal government.

What if the federal government (both houses of congress and president's signature) declared a one child policy such as in communist China.

What if the federal goverment passed legislation that required you must turn in all your fire-arms or face felony charges.

What if the federal governmend passed legislation that required you surrender 50% of your gross pay?

Best,

GWB

Republicans are always Conservatives. Sometimes they win(Reagan, Bush, Bush) sometimes they lose(Dole, McCain, Romney, but they are always Conservative. If you didn't support all those men without question then you supported their Democratic challengers.

Sherp, you make blanket statements, as if they were pronouncements from heaven.


Where' your proof that all Republicans are Conservatives?

As to supporting "men" without question, not a chance. I had questions about God, and he is immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

One puts his faith in a man unquestioningly, he is to be unquestionably disappointed, sooner or later.

I prefer to believe in principles.

Your mileage may vary.


Best,

GWB

Because every one of those candidates were supported by Conservatives. Tell me how any of them were different than Lincoln or Reagan?

Sherp,

Are you sure you're a conservative republican, and not a troll as has been suggested by several here. I am beginning to believe otherwise. Seems you want me to "provide" or "give" you the answer to everything. Even a backsliding conservative-nee-republican would take it upon himself to acquire knowledge.


Here is a tip! There is such a thing as "Google" where you could look it up "for yourself" like a good conservative would do..

However, as one can lead a guitar to water, but not tune a fish, I will humor you with an example (hint, google).......



"Who said? �I�ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.� Well, those words would never have passed Reagan�s lips. It was infamously said by Bush, in defense of his massive spending spree in the last weeks of his presidency. There�s nothing conservative about it. But it sums up Bush�s lack of confidence in the free market system, and his repeated and excessive use of government intervention in American society.

Bush never claimed to be the conservative Reagan was, nor did he spend his early political career challenging GOP orthodoxy, which, until Reagan won in 1980, was mostly incoherent mush of the Rockefeller-Scranton-Nixon-Ford-Bush/41 kind. George H. W. Bush and other mainstream Republican primary challengers sought to thwart Reagan because, they insisted, his conservatism would be rejected by the voters."

http://humanevents.com/2011/03/18/ronald-reagan-and-george-w-bush/


Back at ya'

Best,

GWB

I have great respect for Lee.
I have read a good bit on the civil war and still enjoy reading civil war books. I have an old collection of Century Magazines written right after the civil war. A lot of contemporary writing of the day , about Lincoln, Lee, the War etc.

The one thing that i could never understand about Lee was his decision to side with his " beloved" home state of Virginia , when he , in his words was devoted to the keeping the Union whole, he showed little respect for his Revolutionary War Ancestress . His father Light Horse Harry Lee, devoted to the Union and George Washington. Two uncles , signers of the Declaration . And many others, that were Lees' family. His wife , a Custis , part of Washingytons family.
With that, being said, and understanding the great respect and devotion his soldiers had for him, I understand Lee was highly over-rated. His early success was not only due to his ability to lead and his tactfulness, but the bumbling of his Union Army opponents.
He , more too often, made decisions on his "perceived" view of Gods' will.
Overstreet was a far more capable general and Gettysburg may have had a different out come had Lee taken Overstreets advice and lead the Union Army away from Gettysburg and fought the battle in a more advantageous ( for the Northern Virginia Army) place.
However, Lee was eager for a decisive battle and his judgement was poor. It was "Gods will".
As I stated , "I have great respect for Lee" . But he was and is highly-overrated.

Strike the tent.

As I stated , "I have great respect for Lee" .

cisco1,

I cannot remember when I was not an iconoclast.

I luv jokes and humor with a "hook".

When I started this thread, I did so somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

On Monday, most folks if you asked, would have referenced MLK.

In good cheer, I thought I'd reference REL.

Like you I hold the man in high regard. However as I mentioned before, I deify no man, and follow none blindly.

Opinions are like noses, everyone has one and most of them smell.


It is my opinion that secession was understood to be the right of a "sovereign state"

ON SECESSION AND SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE

The voluntary union (or confederacy) of States known as the United States was born of a secessionist movement against Great Britain, and our Declaration of Independence is, at base, a secessionist document. How, then, can secession legitimately be called 'un-American?'

When our Founding Fathers broke the bonds of political association with the British Empire in 1776, the former colonies became free and independent States constituting thirteen separate communities, each asserting its sovereignty. This state of affairs received confirmation by both the Articles of Confederation (1778) and the Treaty of Paris (1783). Thus Americans themselves, as well as their British foe, acknowledged that each State was a separate and sovereign entity.

The sovereignty of the separate States is an important issue in understanding exactly how the United States was formed under its Constitution of 1787-88. When delegates from the States met in Philadelphia in May 1787, they came as representatives selected by the people (i.e. citizens) of their respective States. These delegates were not given authority by the people of their States to make any binding agreements; rather, they were only to discuss proposed amendments (just as our current Constitution has been amended from time to time) to the Articles of Confederation. Any changes to the Articles might become effective only if they were ratified in convention by the citizens of the separate States.

The result of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was, of course, the U. S. Constitution. Patrick Henry and the Anti-Federalists opposed as they accurately predicted that it would result in an out of control and corrupt central government. Nonetheless, the Articles of Confederation were overturned. But the wisdom of that measure is a story for another day.

The U.S. Constitution did not become binding until nine of the thirteen States had ratified it for themselves. That happened in 1788, and thus these nine States entered into a compact (or contract) with each other. By doing so, they created the political union known as the United States. The four States that remained outside of this union for a time were not bound by the compact. Eventually, though, all thirteen States united under the Constitution.

For our purposes, it is important to note here that no State (or States) could answer for another State. Each State acceded to the compact by its own sovereign will. Moreover, all of them understood that they might secede from the compact by the same means by which they had acceded to it, and that is by a convention of the citizens or their representatives.

Nowhere in the Constitution is it forbidden for a State to secede from this voluntary union. In fact, the Tenth Amendment (contained in the Bill of Rights of 1791) expressly confirms that 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' The power to force a State against its will to remain in the union is absent among the powers delegated to the general (or federal) government; therefore, the right of secession is reserved to the States, or more precisely, to the people of the States.


http://dixienet.org/rights/2012/secession_southern_independence.php



It is also my opinion that men such as Lee and his contemporaries viewed their first allegiance to their "sovereign" state. Not to the "Union" or federal government which was a "federation" of the original 13 colonies.......


......................

The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, was a document signed amongst the thirteen original colonies that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution.[1] Its drafting by a committee appointed by the Second Continental Congress began on July 12, 1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal ratification by all thirteen states was completed in early 1781. Even when not yet ratified, the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy for the Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and Native American relations. Nevertheless, the weakness of the government created by the Articles became a matter of concern for key nationalists. On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the U.S. Constitution.[2][3] The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation



But as you know, opinions vary. At this point in history, it is moot.



I do believe history has been kind to REL. Lee was fallible and had foibles and frailties as does any other human being. However, I believe him to have been honorable, and a man of integrity.


Best,

GWB