My book collection is well-endowed with writings from conservatives, thank you very much. Hell, I own two by Pat Buchanan.

 

I agree that not enough people dare to challenge themselves by exploring other viewpoints.

 

I am definitely guilty of that but I am trying to become a lot better going forward. Participating in discussion in this forum gives me many challenging viewpoints to explore.

After reading LN's post it is clearly obvious that racism obviously still need to be discussed and I don't care how the conversation is started but there is a need for one. IMO,(at least my perspective of his latest post) LN wants to turn a blind eye as to why things are the way they are. If people truly think the effects of what happened 150 years ago aren't still present today and still affecting the world we live in the there needs to be a discussion.

 

I agree but for reasons probably the polar opposite of yours. It is important enough that it would deserve it's own category.

People like Rush are who drive the Republican party and the reason why someone like Palin was considered a necessary VP candidate.

 

And liberals have no one to blame for Limbaugh but themselves.

 

Here's my take on what Limbaugh says: 50% reflects pretty firmly held beliefs of the average Republican, 30% is only held by very conservative types, and 20% is for shock value and targeted at both liberals & the very, very far right.

 

Does he have a significant impact on the Republican party? Certainly. It's undeniable. He drives discussion. The power of the pen, right?

Fine. She sells way too many books and has way too many appearances on Fox and too many speaking engagements to tell me she doesn't have an impact on many.

Look at who she's selling to. People that are already of that mindset and aren't going to budge one little bit. She isn't going to sway anyone on the fence because those on the fence won't give her any credibility, deservedly so. Her impact is of zero importance because they're already in that camp to start with.

Also, I am curious as to why Black voters vote for the democrats now days. I mean, what have the democrats done ever-more so than republicans- to further their place in the US? It wasn't the Civil Rights act of 1866, that was Republicans. It wasn't the Civil Rights act of 1964 or the voting acts or '65. Republicans voted those on a heavier scale than the democrats. Can anyone help?

 

I posted this before but one of the main reasons many blacks today vote democratic is because of some the things that happened after the flood of 1927. This caused a fundamental shift in the ways blacks voted. Before this natural disaster they voted mostly Republican.

Since you're already off topic....And what has happened to the country as a result of all this "crossing the aisle" that occurred in the '60's & '70's? The size and scope of government has exploded, the average citizen has become less self-reliant & more dependent on government, and the government at all levels now reaches wider and deeper into the lives of our citizens than anyone even 50 years ago could have possibly imagined. "Bipartisanship" has done nothing but increase the position of liberals, and decrease that of conservatives. Sure conservatives have done a good job banging their chests over electoral victories beginning with Reagan, but a truly conservative direction for this country has not come about because of these victories. Every growth in government from 1950 until now has stuck, and all conservatives have truthfully succeeded in doing is slowing that rate of growth from time to time. It's time to SHRINK the federal government. I like and desire partisanship out of those I elect to represent me in government, and it's my goal to get enough peoples elected that represent my views so that my views will be enacted. Plain & simple, that's what I want. Compromise has moved the federal government in one direction, and one direction only, left.

 

What was so conservative about Reagan and Bush? Were they more fiscally conservative or responsible? Did they spend less? Did they shrink government?

What was so conservative about Reagan and Bush? Were they more fiscally conservative or responsible? Did they spend less? Did they shrink government?

 

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. I believe Reagan was definitely conservative, but the size of gov't grew anyway. I'll leave it to others to debate whether that was due to compromise, or the lack of a true conservative conviction to begin with. Bush never really was a conservative - not so dissimilar to Romney that way - so it's no shock at all that gov't grew under his stewardship.

 

I want a President and congressional majority committed to shrinking the size & scope of the federal government. If they can do it with "bipartisanship" then great, if not, I'll take partisanship any day.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. I believe Reagan was definitely conservative, but the size of gov't grew anyway. I'll leave it to others to debate whether that was due to compromise, or the lack of a true conservative conviction to begin with. Bush never really was a conservative - not so dissimilar to Romney that way - so it's no shock at all that gov't grew under his stewardship.

 

I want a President and congressional majority committed to shrinking the size & scope of the federal government. If they can do it with "bipartisanship" then great, if not, I'll take partisanship any day.

 

:thumb:Fair enough. I'll leave it at that so as not to hijack the thread.

Our blacks may be better than their blacks, but their Jews kick our Jews to the curb, and our Gays have more money but just aren't as politically active as their Gays. I'm sure I can offend some more here shortly.