What is compassionate about robbing your neighbor to pay someone to become
more dependent on government? It's not compassionate and it's most certainly
not Conservatism.

Government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem. Government
as a whole can not do what people ought to do for themselves-looking out for
your own best interest. Government can only look after its best interest,
which is incogruent with any individuals. Therefore, the powers of
government must be severely limited to only the protection of individual
rights, the right to life and property.

Anyone who endorses the growth of government, the growth of the nanny state
is a parasite and obviously no sailor. The only real sailors are
Conservatives, for they are naturally self reliant. George Bush is no
Conservative. No Conservative can be compassionate, a true Conservative can
only be just and true. Compassion is a liberal codeword for compromised
principles - a distorted reality.

The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who
understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves
of the power they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds
of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is
pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will
proclaim in a campaign speech: "I have little interest in streamlining
government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I
do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim
is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new
programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or
that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an
unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether
legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is
constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for
neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed
their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very
best I can.

You quote Barry M. Goldwater who was a respected conservative.

What did it get him? Only a footnote in the annals of history.

For Conservatism to work it must get voted into office.
Sadly, too few of the voting public have the wisdom, skills
or desires to go it on their own without big government
entitlement programs upon which they have been weaned
from their mother's teat. They have simply traded their
mother's teat for Washington D.C.s teat.

Depending on themselves is not something people are prepared
to do. So Conservatism really has no chance to succeed.
The majority of people just don't have the balls to accept
it. I wish it were different but I'm a realist. It's better any
day to support a watered down version of Conservatism
like that which President Bush is presenting than to accept
liberalism and the horrors it portends.

In the end liberalism will win because that's human nature.
Weakness and dependence will always drag down and
defeat strength and independence by the shear force of
numbers. Since the dawn of civilization liberalism has gained
in strength by virtue of the numbers of people who know
and want nothing else. It won't be too many more generations
before liberalism has it's way.

I'm thankful I probably won't be around long enough to see it.

S.Simon - a realistic Conservative and an anachronism




"Flounder" wrote in message ink.net...
What is compassionate about robbing your neighbor to pay someone to become
more dependent on government? It's not compassionate and it's most certainly
not Conservatism.

Government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem. Government
as a whole can not do what people ought to do for themselves-looking out for
your own best interest. Government can only look after its best interest,
which is incogruent with any individuals. Therefore, the powers of
government must be severely limited to only the protection of individual
rights, the right to life and property.

Anyone who endorses the growth of government, the growth of the nanny state
is a parasite and obviously no sailor. The only real sailors are
Conservatives, for they are naturally self reliant. George Bush is no
Conservative. No Conservative can be compassionate, a true Conservative can
only be just and true. Compassion is a liberal codeword for compromised
principles - a distorted reality.

The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who
understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves
of the power they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds
of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is
pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will
proclaim in a campaign speech: "I have little interest in streamlining
government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I
do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim
is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new
programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or
that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an
unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether
legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is
constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for
neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed
their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very
best I can.

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
You quote Barry M. Goldwater who was a respected conservative.

What did it get him? Only a footnote in the annals of history.

It got him elected as Senator many times and a shot at the Presidency. He
will be remembered far longer than any other politician of his day along
with Ronald Reagan.
Look at the great figures in American history. Almost without exception
they're Conservative! As Rush says, "Conservatism works every time it's
tried" and he's right!

Thanks to Bush's rather disappointing presidency, true Conservatives are on
the rise again.

Goldwater ran for president as himself with no agenda to please anyone. His
only interest was the Constitution and the Republic. He was defeated by lies
and innuendo. Today, who speaks of LBJ and the Great Society? No one, it's
good ole Barry that's remembered and rightfully so. Goldwater's acceptance
speech is in the history books, where is LBJ's?

Sometimes a man may go down in flames. Sometimes those flames provide the
light for others to see. There's much more good to come. Real Conservatives
can't be defeated. They use low yield atomic weapons to clear away the brush
to get at the Communists!

The rise of homeschooling brings a bright future on the horizon. There's a
new wave of the best and brightest who never suckled the bile of the
government teat. The leviathan will be cut down in size.



For Conservatism to work it must get voted into office.
Sadly, too few of the voting public have the wisdom, skills
or desires to go it on their own without big government
entitlement programs upon which they have been weaned
from their mother's teat. They have simply traded their
mother's teat for Washington D.C.s teat.

Depending on themselves is not something people are prepared
to do. So Conservatism really has no chance to succeed.
The majority of people just don't have the balls to accept
it. I wish it were different but I'm a realist. It's better any
day to support a watered down version of Conservatism
like that which President Bush is presenting than to accept
liberalism and the horrors it portends.

In the end liberalism will win because that's human nature.
Weakness and dependence will always drag down and
defeat strength and independence by the shear force of
numbers. Since the dawn of civilization liberalism has gained
in strength by virtue of the numbers of people who know
and want nothing else. It won't be too many more generations
before liberalism has it's way.

I'm thankful I probably won't be around long enough to see it.

S.Simon - a realistic Conservative and an anachronism




"Flounder" wrote in message
ink.net...
What is compassionate about robbing your neighbor to pay someone to
become
more dependent on government? It's not compassionate and it's most
certainly
not Conservatism.

Government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem.
Government
as a whole can not do what people ought to do for themselves-looking out
for
your own best interest. Government can only look after its best
interest,
which is incogruent with any individuals. Therefore, the powers of
government must be severely limited to only the protection of individual
rights, the right to life and property.

Anyone who endorses the growth of government, the growth of the nanny
state
is a parasite and obviously no sailor. The only real sailors are
Conservatives, for they are naturally self reliant. George Bush is no
Conservative. No Conservative can be compassionate, a true Conservative
can
only be just and true. Compassion is a liberal codeword for compromised
principles - a distorted reality.

The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who
understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest
themselves
of the power they have been given. It will come when Americans, in
hundreds
of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office
who is
pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will
proclaim in a campaign speech: "I have little interest in streamlining
government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its
size. I
do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My
aim
is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new
programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution,
or
that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an
unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether
legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is
constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for
neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was
informed
their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the
very
best I can.

I sincerely hope you're right . . .


"Flounder" wrote in message ink.net...

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
You quote Barry M. Goldwater who was a respected conservative.

What did it get him? Only a footnote in the annals of history.

It got him elected as Senator many times and a shot at the Presidency. He
will be remembered far longer than any other politician of his day along
with Ronald Reagan.
Look at the great figures in American history. Almost without exception
they're Conservative! As Rush says, "Conservatism works every time it's
tried" and he's right!

Thanks to Bush's rather disappointing presidency, true Conservatives are on
the rise again.

Goldwater ran for president as himself with no agenda to please anyone. His
only interest was the Constitution and the Republic. He was defeated by lies
and innuendo. Today, who speaks of LBJ and the Great Society? No one, it's
good ole Barry that's remembered and rightfully so. Goldwater's acceptance
speech is in the history books, where is LBJ's?

Sometimes a man may go down in flames. Sometimes those flames provide the
light for others to see. There's much more good to come. Real Conservatives
can't be defeated. They use low yield atomic weapons to clear away the brush
to get at the Communists!

The rise of homeschooling brings a bright future on the horizon. There's a
new wave of the best and brightest who never suckled the bile of the
government teat. The leviathan will be cut down in size.



For Conservatism to work it must get voted into office.
Sadly, too few of the voting public have the wisdom, skills
or desires to go it on their own without big government
entitlement programs upon which they have been weaned
from their mother's teat. They have simply traded their
mother's teat for Washington D.C.s teat.

Depending on themselves is not something people are prepared
to do. So Conservatism really has no chance to succeed.
The majority of people just don't have the balls to accept
it. I wish it were different but I'm a realist. It's better any
day to support a watered down version of Conservatism
like that which President Bush is presenting than to accept
liberalism and the horrors it portends.

In the end liberalism will win because that's human nature.
Weakness and dependence will always drag down and
defeat strength and independence by the shear force of
numbers. Since the dawn of civilization liberalism has gained
in strength by virtue of the numbers of people who know
and want nothing else. It won't be too many more generations
before liberalism has it's way.

I'm thankful I probably won't be around long enough to see it.

S.Simon - a realistic Conservative and an anachronism




"Flounder" wrote in message
ink.net...
What is compassionate about robbing your neighbor to pay someone to
become
more dependent on government? It's not compassionate and it's most
certainly
not Conservatism.

Government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem.
Government
as a whole can not do what people ought to do for themselves-looking out
for
your own best interest. Government can only look after its best
interest,
which is incogruent with any individuals. Therefore, the powers of
government must be severely limited to only the protection of individual
rights, the right to life and property.

Anyone who endorses the growth of government, the growth of the nanny
state
is a parasite and obviously no sailor. The only real sailors are
Conservatives, for they are naturally self reliant. George Bush is no
Conservative. No Conservative can be compassionate, a true Conservative
can
only be just and true. Compassion is a liberal codeword for compromised
principles - a distorted reality.

The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who
understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest
themselves
of the power they have been given. It will come when Americans, in
hundreds
of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office
who is
pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will
proclaim in a campaign speech: "I have little interest in streamlining
government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its
size. I
do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My
aim
is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new
programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution,
or
that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an
unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether
legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is
constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for
neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was
informed
their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the
very
best I can.