Conservatives' Journal (original) (raw)

You are viewing the most recent 25 entries.

31st October 2008

hallyluia @ 8:28pm: Chuck Norris - an idol to the young, and an idol to me. I couldn't say this better... I'm Voting for Those Not Yet Born

Posted 10/28/2008 ET
Updated 10/28/2008 ET

My, how the landscape of elections has changed. Remember when the issue of abortion used to matter to conservatives in political races? Today presidential nominees can get away with murder, literally. They can smoke, toke and hang out with terrorists who do. What were once considered legitimate leadership litmus tests are now regarded as off-limit character assassinations and hate language. Recently, some nonprofit organizations have been threatened with the withdrawal of their tax-exempt statuses because their leaders merely voiced opposition to what they consider a moral issue: abortion.

( Read more...Collapse )

Winning the election is not just about what the underdogs -- such as John McCain and Sarah Palin, two maverick pro-life advocates -- should do. But it's about what the citizens who are fighting for the underdogs can do. We the people must stand up, go back to the basics, and once again vote our values.

Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2008 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

15th August 2007

29th June 2007

sol_invictus_99 @ 6:39pm: Wow... a little ignorance goes a long way... check this out:

Hamas TV Kills Off Mickey Mouse Double

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287423,00.html

Here - another mix of 11th-century barbaric ignorance with a bit of modern flair:

Remind me to invest in overseas lead-paint removal. Apparently some folks need it over there.

28th June 2007

24th April 2007

cmd6190 @ 6:51am: Bush Was Right This is a great video. Send it to your friends. Support the country.

19th April 2007

27th October 2005

lady_j_usa @ 11:44am: X- posted all over A letter written in my local paper this week had me outraged.

Our Local Rotary spent $7000 to have a flag painted on our water tower. I think it's awsome. It was their gift to the city as part our 125th Birthday Celebration. (Which Was on Oct. 26th) and their 100th Anniverasy.

The letter was written in protest of the water tower flag. She said it reminined her of all the "Bad Things" that are going on in our country. She viewed it as a symbol of the War which was doesn't want to be remined of.
She belives that money could have been spent to help the under privleaged people in our community.

I am seriously thinking of sending a response to this letter.

Any thoughts?

30th September 2005

1965_ @ 10:49pm: Hello everyone,
I've done a lot of research and have come to the conclusion that Judaism is a good fit for me. I asked someone, who converted for her husband, about how her conversion went and she told me that some of her husbands relatives are not very accepting of her. She says their hostility could be because she's black, and says I might have a better experience because I'm white. I'm not converting for the social aspect of it, but I was just wondering; are converts accepted by most Jewish people? Or will I be treated like a social leper?

x-posted to get more than one opinion.

7th September 2005

poorwhiteboy @ 5:41pm: Wanna See him gone? http://bloodyhearts.com/

Take the image from this site and plaster it on every telephone/light pole in your city. We did it last weekend, most of them were gone in a few days, but we are going to put up 1000 this weekend instead of 600.

Have them wake up the next day to see how many people don't want him around!

17th March 2005

jamescaviezel @ 11:48am: Victor Charlie

Remember when truth, strength, and honor actually stood for something. What would Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or Augustus Pablo say about the society we have created? Whether you fancy yourself a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Anglican, it's time to stop standing on the sidelines!

Also, don't forget to check out our brothers at nichols_fans and free_the_carrs

4th February 2005

ms_understood82 @ 10:38am: WARNING!!! I just wanted to warn you of the situation going on here....I am NOT badmouthing, but this needs to be HEARD! conservative67 is a SEXUAL PREDATOR!!! Take him off of your lists and be warned ladies! He has done this to at LEAST 10 women...We need to block him immediately! Any questions, just IM me! THANK YOU!

A concerned user!!!

Current Mood: concerned

29th January 2005

ms_understood82 @ 11:14pm: HIHI! Hey! I am new to the community, but I have been a Republican for as long as I can remember. I owe it all to my father who instilled me with the core views that I have today! I am pro-life, pro-capital punishment, and anti-gay marriage! :)

I hope to make many friends in here! *huggles*

19th November 2004

conservative67 @ 9:03am: Liberal Chattering Class Unhinged November 19, 2004
David Limbaugh
DavidLimbaugh.com
The liberal chattering class has literally gone off its collective rocker. Little negative has occurred since the election -- cabinet shakeups are routine and traditional, and our guys routed the bad guys in Fallujah -- but the way the Left is carrying on you'd think President Bush had issued a string of corrupt pardons, or something.

I wouldn't think Democrat angst could get much worse. Democrats have acted
like victims of robbery the last four years, but now they're acting like women scorned, rejected by a dueling banjo-wielding electorate. I guess I suspected they'd take their losses badly, but I didn't realize they'd unshackle all gentlemanly restraints on their septic bitterness.

During the campaign they conjured up all these imaginary misdeeds that President Bush and Vice President Cheney had engaged in, from their fantasies that they lied about Iraqi WMD to the distribution of favors to Halliburton to augment VP Cheney's blind-trusted pocketbook. Each of their fraudulent claims was too preposterous to be taken seriously by any but the gullible class, many of whom were taken in by sheer repetition.

You would think that they would have run out of ammunition by now. Don't
they ever take a breath? How about just faking cordiality for some minimal
honeymoon period? In their unyielding malice and hatred have we finally
discovered a perpetual motion machine?

Full article

2nd November 2004

_frequency @ 10:43pm: Hello everyone. I'm a newbie.

I am in a bit of a dilemma, however.

I am enrolled in an Advanced Placement European History class and my teacher is ultra-liberal. He regularly criticizes President Bush and makes personal attacks (he also displays anti-Bush posters from Europe).

I have considered writing an anonymous email to the Principal and/or superintendents.

It is not that I want a conservative teacher, I just want balance. Is that too much to ask?

What do you suggest?

4th October 2004

chasingred @ 8:52pm: A CONSERVATIVE/ NEOLIBERAL ARGUMENT AGAINST THE BUSH DOCTRINE It seems to me that one of the most powerful arguments against Bush's foreign policy doctrine (in all of its mutations and adjustments) can be found in Hayek's contribution to economics (I'm speaking of Frederick Hayek, not Salma Hayek).

Frederick Hayek is one of the most eminent Austrian economists who followed after Ludwig Von Mises. Without Mises and Hayek, neoliberal theories on the benefits of capitalism and decentralized market economies may be quite different, if not non-existent.

Some of the best articles I read by Hayek were "Economics and Knowledge" (1937) and "The Use of Knowledge in Society" (1945). The Mises Institute summarizes some of Hayek's thoughts here:

Much of the knowledge necessary for running the economic system, Hayek contended, is in the form not of "scientific" or technical knowledge--the conscious awareness of the rules governing natural and social phenomena--but of " knowledge, the idiosyncratic, dispersed bits of understanding of "circumstances of time and place." This tacit knowledge is often not consciously known even to those who possess it and can never be communicated to a central authority. The market tends to use this tacit knowledge through a type of "discovery procedure" (Hayek, 1968a), by which this information is unknowingly transmitted throughout the economy as an unintended consequence of individuals' pursuing their own ends.

The writings really should be viewed in their totality, not as summarized by secondary sources (I highly recommend them if you’re interested in economics). Nonetheless, I shall summarize that Hayek essentially observed that economies only successfully work when the system taps into the environment of diffused knowledge, not by trying to aggregate information into a central authority.

He was both right and wrong though. The Soviet Union, however much a miserable failure it turned out to be, was actually successful at certain economic tasks. For example, while the Soviet economy couldn't innovate (let alone have central planners dictate how many toothbrushes to make that year), it was quite efficient and effective at accomplishing directed and simple goals. If you wanted a steel mill with these specifications built at this place by this time, the Soviet planners could do it. It was a simple goal. However, in the long run, economics is more than accomplishing simple goals, so the Soviet system failed.

There seems to be Hayekian lessons to be drawn here in regards to the Bush Doctrine. For whichever form you take the Doctrine to be in, it is quite measurable to Reagan's Doctrine. While there is room for controversy about the wisdom of Reagan's Doctrine, given the simple environment of dealing with Soviet foreign policy, it worked to a certain extent because the goals were relatively simple. Soviet Union is in Latin America. We go to Latin America with these goals and these strategies. Soviets place missiles here, we place missiles there. The centralized, top-down, secretive nature of the Reagan Doctrine worked (arguably) because of the simplicity of the foreign policy goals (relatively).

With the new "war on terror," goals are much more complicated. Strategies are even more clouded. In this environment, there are no simple missions and calculable results. The calculable nature of the Cold War was much higher than the current situation where enemies are in decentralized, unrelated cells, operate incoherently, and ferment their power through international recruitment. Thus, it seems that Hayek's emphasis on utilizing decentralized knowledge is much more pertinent in today’s international relations.

Bush's reliance on American intelligence, forgoing of international cooperation (to whatever extent you want to measure it, there is some dismissal), and insistence on treating this as a "foreign policy war," instead of a "global police problem," is characteristic of what I'm terming as a "centralized structure." This alienates us from other possible sources of information. Either by losing allies, failing to build up stronger international police communication structures, or handing the "war on terror" to more decentralized levels, we are losing out on a wealth of knowledge that should be used against terrorists. The culmination of this centralized structure’s ineffectiveness was evident when it turned out that our own intelligence failed through either 1) insufficient information at different times pre-9/11 and after, 2) poor communication at different times pre-9/11 and after, and 3) reliance on information from misleading informants such as the one who called himself “Curveball.” I think both pre-9/11 and post 9/11 international relation strategies could have been more successful if they were built on a decentralized structure. Nation-state and international organization actors would pursue their own interests by networking information and cooperating in a similar way that the global economy works. A set of incentives could be built through international organizations too, however, I think many nations would cooperate for the sake of their own safety and in order to earn diplomatic brownie points. Dealing with this as an international police problem, even at the threat of exposing our intelligence system to other nations, seems to be more sensible given that international nation-state threats (for now) seem to be dampened through the ever tightening interdependency effect of the global economy.

Kerry has called the current terrorist threat one of a "police problem" while Bush calls it a "war." Kerry, in effect, is advocating for a more decentralized strategy while Bush is vying for a more centralized one. How has our classical liberal/ neoliberal intellectual, Hayek, somehow landed in the camp of Kerry?

Thoughts on this transplanting of neoliberal/ classical liberal/ truly conservative economic theory to international relations?

29th August 2004

badcamper @ 5:55pm: Reflections of the protests in New York City After glimpsing at news coverage from C-SPAN, CNN and Fox News for about an hour, I really do wonder, what this protest is about?

I see rainbow flags touting "Let us Marry ♀♀," "Stop the Draft" banners being flown by A.N.S.W.E.R. supporters, MTV generation youth donning "Buck Fush" t-shirts, pink "peace" signs fashioned in the shape of a gun. The media could not successfully bleep out the word "Fuck" without muting the entire demonstration...and the loudest and most prominent thing that could be heard being chanted by the protesters?

"Fox News Sucks! Fox News Sucks!"

* Pro Gay-marriage
* Anti-Draft (a dead issue, and I do not understand why it even exists)
* Pro-Minority rights
* Pro-Communism
* Pro-Environment (blaming businesses for our pollution, when our 270,000,000 citizens are responsible for the majority of pollution)
* Anti-Business
* Anti-War
* Anti-Fox News (why is this an issue?)

I would have to say that this protest demonstrates one thing; that the Democratic Party is more divided and just as confused as ever.
In their attempt to reach out and appeal to a more diverse and wider based voting population - the gay community, minorities, lower-middle class US citizens, anti-War efforts, socialism - the Democratic party is quite literally having their platform fall apart underneath them.

Democrats cheered after electing President Clinton into power in 1992, and rightfully so. He served as a balanced and effective president. Yet defenders of President Clinton say that his inability to be more partisan and representative of the Democratic Party was a result of Congress being under Republican control.

With each congressional election, the Republican Party found itself gaining more footholds during the Clinton Administration. The very people who had voted Clinton into office were now beginning to replace their Democratic legislators – who had campaigned on the very issues we see being protested in New York City today. Democratic legislators were unable to successfully gain the majority support over such a broad number of issues that by themselves are barely recognized.

Ten years after Clinton took office, the upset moderate majority voters of the United States had a much different opinion of who should lead our country and represent our people the best. They sided with Republicans - who have remained generally united in their cause, and as a result, more effective.

Today we more visibly see the sole plank of this Democratic Party Platform that holds it together; the “Anybody but Bush” campaign. Thousands of protesters, though different in their issue-based backgrounds, unite under this slogan.

CNN interviews RNC protesters, asking them who they support in this election.
”I’m for Senator Kerry by default. He is who I can vote for to get Bush out of office,” one demonstrator exclaims.

Concentrating so much anger and frustration and focusing it towards the opposition might very well win the Democrats this election, but it will not provide any reasonable solutions for the issues that are at hand.

On a side note:

The flame of unrealistic goals and expectations has been fanned too high, to the point where no administration can have any hopes of keeping it under control. While this fire grows out of control, elected officials get burned by the false premise of what they are really capable of, their Constitutional rights and duties.

I don't blame campaigns for allowing the subject to get off of Issues and on to trivial nonsense such as war records. It distracts the public long enough to keep the candidates from having to commit themselves to making false promises to overcome impossible goals.

25th August 2004

chasingred @ 12:41pm: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOCRACY Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi published a study in 1997 in the World Politics Journal. It was entitled "Modernization: Theories and Facts." In the study, they looked at every country between 1950 and 1990 to correlate economic development and democracy building. They found that in a democratic country that has a per capita income of under 1,500(adjustedforinflationhere),theregimeonaveragelastedabouteightyears.Between1,500 (adjusted for inflation here), the regime on average lasted about eight years. Between 1,500(adjustedforinflationhere),theregimeonaveragelastedabouteightyears.Between1,500 and 3,000,itsurvivedforabouteighteenyears.Anypercapitaabove3,000, it survived for about eighteen years. Any per capita above 3,000,itsurvivedforabouteighteenyears.Anypercapitaabove6,000, democracy usually worked (the chances of it dying were 1 in 500). Every country that started their democracy when per capita was $9,000 have all lasted. None of the 32 countries in that category have died.

If you read the new 2004 Human Development Report on the United Nations site, you'll find that China's per capita GDP is at $4,580. Growth of per capita income is a mixed bag. Rural residents are seeing a decline in their speed of growth, which is now somewhere around 2 percent. Urban residents, however, are seeing slight increases in growth, which is currently growing at a pace of 7 percent.

Iraq's per capita income is obviously distorted with the previous ten years of sanctions. Nonetheless, whatever the cause may be, there is some concern that Iraqi per capita income is $480. And it's declining.

24th August 2004

21st August 2004

jerryhatttrick @ 12:10pm: MoveOn.org making you sick? For far too long, liberals, even some who are funny for a living, have thought themselves to be "The Keepers of the Satirical Flame(tm)." Well, think again, you Left you. MoveOnPlease.org seeks to balance the barrage of Liberal-leaning satire by taking direct aim at the subtle money-plucking efforts of MoveOn.org, which some cynics believe might actually be a devious Democratic loophole meant to slither around campaign reform laws. Hmmm...

MoveOnPlease.org will go where no satirical site has gone before with such multimedia offerings as...

- A Sneak peak at Michael Moore's new autobiographical documentary, "I Am Not An Asshole: The Michael Moore Story."

- Really, Really, Hateful Anti-Bush Hate Commercials from MoveOnPlease.org's "Bushwhacked In 30 Seconds" contest.

- Help find an Air America radio signal without parking in the station's parking lot. "The Fun Is In Trying To Find Us!"

- Regular updates on which Bush Administration member the left thinks should be fired next.

- "How to Have a Kerry for President Party For Under $100,000." (Including Banner and All Paper Products)

- "Why Everything Bad That Has Ever Happened Is the Fault of Donald Rumsfeld"

And lastly, in the best tradition of Moveon.org, MoveOnPlease.org will incessantly beg donations so that they will be able to skirt around harsh satirical campaign laws to finance better and more patriotic office parties.

www.MoveOnPlease.org

;)

17th August 2004

chasingred @ 3:57pm: FREE TRADE DEBATE Since Kerry has raised the issue of free trade, I'm starting a series of entries discussing the theory of free trade (I'm defending it). I'll be putting up a post every two or three days covering one aspect of the issue. It's my hope that within two weeks, I'll have covered what I'd like to.

Here is my first post, which defends sweatshops. Please comment intelligently.

chasingred @ 10:39am: HOW MARKET REGULATIONS CAN HURT THE POOR Some people have been complaining that my posts are too long and that I cross post to too many communities, so from now on I'll just include the link to a central location so that these posts are short and also help direct everyone to discuss things on one thread. If anyone is really against that, let me know.

Here are my thoughts on how market regulations can hurt the poor. Thoughts?