Roughan on Clark
February 7th, 2009 at 8:40 am by David FarrarJohn Roughan looks at Helen Clark:
Through the latter half of the 20th century it became evident that National was this country’s “natural” government. Labour would be given an occasional turn but National was the default setting.
This was the state of politics Helen Clark set out to change when she came to power at the Century’s end.
And she did. There is absolutely no way the National is the natural party of Government. Of course MMP is a factor in this also.
For six years she would take no political risks. She followed the political studies textbook, doing no more or less than she had promised at the election, suspending ministers at the first whiff of embarrassment, returning media calls, making sure her decisions were understood.
Those decisions, if not exactly courageous, were usually in accord with common sense and her answers to interviewers were invariably concise, informative and fairly convincing.
I note that Roughan talks about her first six years as different to her last three. I have often said the third term Helen was very different to the first two terms.
But she fell short of greatness for me. She lacked a largeness of spirit that truly great leadership requires. At one level that deficiency could be seen in her response to the suggestion that Sir Roger Douglas could be “our greatest living New Zealander”.
He is not that either, for different reasons, but now that she has rescued Labour from his legacy her comment could have been more generous – as generous as John Key was to her nomination.
Indeed, and when was the last time you heard John Key denigrate an opponent?
Waitangi asks a lot of political leaders. They will not be feted there until they have had the courage to front up to whatever might happen. Helen Clark would not, could not.
She claimed she would not risk the dignity of her office but that was not the real reason.
Well there were so many reasons. Such as not being a morning person as a reason not to attend the dawn service.
Tags: Helen Clark, John Roughan
February 7th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Clark was convinced of her own superiority.
The Police HQ covered all the foibles, and errant events.
The MSM fawned after her, after being bullied by her underlings. H2 was an uncompromising bastard.
The last 3 years was when the cracks appeared. The polished performance stood up for 6 years.
IMHO, it was the Luigi influence that really set the rot in!
He showed her how far it could be pushed.
The truth is however bursting to come out.
And it will!
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Bring on the truth. Can’t wait Miss Clark. Diddums!
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 9:10 am
DPF said “There is absolutely no way the National is the natural party of Government. Of course MMP is a factor in this also.”
Having been an interested observer since 1954 when Sid Holland was PM and the wounds of the ’51 waterfront conflict were still raw(long before you were born, DPF), I share Roughan’s take.
Labour is the stick that the public use to beat National with when they feel that National have been in power too long and are adopting a “born to rule” mentality. A spell in the wilderness is all that the public want to achieve.
The last labour government with its three terms is a statistical anomaly, which probably existed more because of a perceived lack of credible leadership in National at the crucial times.
Like most third term governments, Labour succumbed to the “born to rule” mentality and the public woke from their sleep and remembered that they had the weapon to cure that.
I suspect that, by the time that by the end of the next century, statistics will show that the major centre right party will have been in office for about 70% of all parliamentary terms since we had our own parliament.
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Check out Whale’s latest report on the bilious bitch, it seems that even now she still seeks to blame everybody but herself for her demise.
When I heard about her constant stream of tears I laughed.
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 9:48 am
She actually read us pretty well. She knew that invective was seen as “strength” across enough strata of society to be a winner. Thus “feral inbreds”, and “Shrek is better company”.. recall too the number of people she maligned just to score points. She was the modern day Muldoon.
She did a couple of other things that were of incalculable value to her.. she gave Arts, Culture and Heritage a massive boost early on.. thus, like FRD ensuring that her legacy would live on.. even during her time in office, and as the OECD points out.. she gave the most generous assistance to tertiary students in just about the world.. and she freely gave her time to address journalist students. Like much else she did, she made her legacy using the public dollar; as Political Pundit gushed a year ago, this is what she did:
* Seeing off 3 opposition leaders (with Key gone by the end of the year)
* The entrenchment of New Zealand’s nuclear free policy
* Working for Families
* Kiwisaver
* Interest-free student loans
* 14 weeks paid parental leave
* Restoration of income-related rents for state houses
* Keeping New Zealand out of the war in Iraq
* Fostering the closest relations with the united States since ANZUS
* Establishment of Kiwi Bank
* Iminent free trade deal with China – the first western country to do so
* Ratification of Kyoto
* 4 weeks annual leave
* More affordable primary healthcare, including cheaper doctors visits and prescriptions
* Biggest upgrade of New Zealand’s public health services ever undertaken
* Making it compulsory for electricity retailers to offer a tariff with a daily charge of 30 cents per day, so that those who use modest amounts of power don’t have to pay a fortune just to keep electricity connected.
* Civil Unions
* Maori Television
* Nationwide FM Pacific Radio Network.
* The Employment Relations Act and the restoration of some degree of equality in employment bargaining
* Economic growth amongst the highest in the world
* The World Bank’s Doing Business in 2005 report showed that New Zealand is the easiest country in the world in which to do business
* $1.42 billion business tax relief package for small business
* The modern apprenticeships programme, which has turned out more than 8,000 modern apprentices
* Establishment of NZ Trade and Enterprise
* Restoration of the married rate of superannuation to not less than 65 per cent of the average net ordinary time weekly wage
* Establishment of the “Cullen” superannuation fund
* Establishment of the $700m NZ Fast Forward research fund
* Increasing Research, Science and Technology funding by 65% percent
* Investing heavily in New Zealand art, culture and heritage
* Funding strong growth in the basic sciences through the Marsden Fund and the New Economy Research Fund
* Establishing the $100m New Zealand Venture Investment Fund
* Increasing the minimum wage every year, due to reach $12/hr in April
* Committed $22.3 billion to address key land transport priorities
* Purchasing back the nation’s rail track and investing over $200 million in maintenance and new capital projects
* Free meningitis vaccinations for all New Zealand children
* Starting work on major Auckland transport projects
* Developing New Zealand’s first ever Rail Strategy, and Walking and Cycling strategy
* Reinstating ACC workplace cover to a full social insurance scheme
* Increasing surgical funding for key operations, such as hip and cateract
* Rebuilding the school dental service
* The implementation of major programmes, such as HEHA, targeting obesity and related diseases
* NCEA
* Increasing investment in conservation and environment policy
* Completing free trade negotiations with Singapore, Thailand, Chile and Brunei and is in the process of negotiating others
* Increasing New Zealand’s international presence, with new embassies in Brasilia, Warsaw, and Cairo
* Committing almost $5b in extra funding for New Zealand’s Defence Force, and radically upgrading equipment, including new Navy frigates and helicopters
* Settling eight major Treaty claims, with at least another 26 in progress
* Delivering rates rebates for older New Zealanders
* Saving Air New Zealand from collapse
* Committing to keeping New Zealand assets in New Zealand hands
* Increasing funding for sport and recreation by almost 20 times its 1999 level
* FORCING NATIONAL TO MOVE TO THE LEFT
There’s plenty of good things there, but even a cursory examination shows the insidious use of the tax dollar to build too many hollow achievements but a substantial dependence. Note too that taxpayers and business are almost invisible.
JC
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 10:09 am
I still remember the best cartoon on Clark from years ago:
“I understand ordinary people – I studied them at University.”
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Clark is a dinosaur!
The chap who spent all that money on a crappy trainset was a mental. But a clever, manipulative mental.
To me the real clue to Klarks personality was her hiding in the shadows at the Waitangi Day celebrations , and the same script at the Business School inauguration.
What a cowardly bullybitch!
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Prostitution law reform (undermining healthy sexual relationships)
Undermining the family unit (mothers back into work)
Undermining marriage (civil unions)
Undermining the responsibility of parents for raising disciplined children
> Well there were so many reasons. Such as not being a morning person as a reason not to attend the dawn service.
If it wasnt clear already the reason to not attend the dawn service was not simply a matter of lying in anything she could do to attack well founded Godly actions she would.
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Agree with Careym.
Although Labour were well intentioned towards the poor in my opinions the negatives gar outweigh the positives.
The undermining of the nations morality with the prostitution reform bill was the first step.Now that prostitution is ok what will follow?
Well very quickly homosexuality is also ok. Civil unions ok. Lower the age of consent to 12,ok,but the electorate not quite ready for it.
Parents smacking their children? Definitely not OK. Lightbulbs? Not OK. Showers? Still not OK.
This term if elected would have seen legalization of polygamy and tranzsexuality as a human right and probably another run at lowering the age of consent.
I hesitate to speculate what else they would have wanted to regulate. A government that has radical opinions on everything and wants to regulate all the details of people’s lives is a government to be feared.
Thank God we haven’t got another term of Labour under Clarke.
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 11:31 am
“Prostitution law reform (undermining healthy sexual relationships)”
ie: supporting individual liberty and human rights and the moral highground that comes with doing so…
“Undermining the family unit (mothers back into work)”
ie: treating women as human beings with the same rights as men.
“Undermining marriage (civil unions)”
ie:Allowing human beings to exercise their right to do as any other people in society are allowed to do….and they actually DO want to get married!…as opposed to nearly everyone else.
You conservatives are fascist retards…..like your socialsit brothers.Your ‘morality” is shit and based on ghost worship.Try one that is based on objective reality and mans nature as man.
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Sorry people but I can’t see how civil unions undermines marriage. Can someone explain that to me please?
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
JC
Vote:To liberal lefties Clark was their wet dream come true.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Clarks regime was a socialist,moronic waste of time and human resources….but on some socially liberal issues she moved in the right direction….we are well shot of a lot of the anal retentive,conservative anti women insecurity of the traditional right wing.Now we just need drug legalization,euthanasia liberalisation et el coupled with a firm policy of personal responsibility.
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Vindictive, egotistical, scheming, and shallow sums her up to me.
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Amrstong overlooks how Clark got to the top of Labout and how she got in as PM. By playing the nestiest ganme possible.
Recall her highly inapropriate relationship with the meida when she wanted to get of a police commisoner and ask yourself where the media got all those vicious stories about Shipley that came to nothing.
Frankly the labour party suporters should hang their heads in shame that they let her fool so many of them for so long.
Her legacy remains the phrase, “as bad as Muldoon, not as bad as Clark”.
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
“You conservatives are fascist retards…..like your socialsit brothers.Your ‘morality” is shit and based on ghost worship.Try one that is based on objective reality and mans nature as man.”
Why thanks James for your well considered and thoughtful reply.
The morality of the West is based on Christianity and I don’t think we need to make any apologies for that.
God is the only source of ‘objective morality’ as far as I can tell. Without God what do we have?
Morality is reduced to nothing more than one’s personal preferences.
For example you want “drug legalization,euthanasia liberalisation et el coupled with a firm policy of personal responsibility”.
How can you possibly know that you are objectively right? How can drugs be a good thing?
And the right to kill people? No doubt with their consent. For a while until,as in Holland,old people start being euthanised in hospital whether they have consented or not.
In fact it is belief in God that has allowed us to have a civilized society that has human rights. Why do humans have rights?
Because we are created in the image of God.
Indeed the Labour party of the 1930′s believed in the dignity of man and hence their far reaching efforts to help the poor on NZ. They saw their welfare programme as ‘applied Christianity’
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
James,
The big issue appears to be how to define what is truth? Are relativistically defined “human rights” a basis for truth? What happens when household pets spring “pet rights” and they clash with my “human rights”, e.g I want sleep but my dog wants to bark, what happens then?
What happens when one New Zealanders view of truth conflicts with another? If everything is relative there is no fundamental basis for what is true, so there is no way of discerning which view genuinely represents truth.
You and I clearly see things differently, we have no common fundamental basis for agreeing or disagreeing as to what is true.
> Your ‘morality” is shit and based on ghost worship.
Jesus Christ came to earth, lived as a man, was crucified on a cross for the sin of all humanity (me and you included) rose to life. Historical facts – however uncomfortable you find them. So I respectfully disagree with your assertion regarding the basis of ghost worship. Real man, real death, real resurrection, real eternal king.
> Try one that is based on objective reality and mans nature as man.
Respectfully do not believe the point of view you are putting forward is objective, you have an inherent bias, your opinion reveals your bias.
If mans nature is the basis, how did mans nature come about?
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
In reply to 2 dead dogs- “Sorry people but I can’t see how civil unions undermines marriage. Can someone explain that to me please?”
Sure, I think I can help you out there.
Marriage since the beginning of time, has been between a man and a woman. That’s how families start. The children that ensue from the union are looked after by the parents who are responsible for them.
Marriage is legitmised by society and by God. Marriage appears to be universal throughout the world and throughout history and many of us would make the case that it is designed by God.
Civil Unions are what? A substitute for marriage? Then this cheapens marriage. Marriage if ordained by God does not need a substitute? If you need something different,another option if you will -then this means something is wrong with marriage?
What was once universal and legitimate and taken for granted as right is now ‘just another option’. That undermines marriage. It is now just another option, rather than the accepted way to live together.
Now two men(or women) living together in a sexual relationship- which is really what civil unions is about, also undermines marriage.
How you might ask?
Well what was good and right and beautiful- a man and a woman saying ‘I do’ is now sullied by the counterfeit of civil unions. Where two men say ‘I do’ or indeed two women, something beautiful and romantic has now been cheapened by a copy that is perverse.
Two men marrying seems wrong and gross. It undermines the whole perception of marriage if we have to look at the marriage pages and instead of seeing ‘Mr and Mrs Bill and Lucy Smith’ we now see ‘Mr and Mr Bill and Ben whatever’.
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
2_dead_dogs,
> Sorry people but I can’t see how civil unions undermines marriage. Can someone explain that to me please?
Great question,
When the laws of this country were written. What was the foundation for what was a marriage that was written into law?
In society today. Where is marriage defined? What makes a marriage?
In my view civil unions undermine marriage because the express purpose of recognising civil unions is to give the civil union the same status under law as a marriage.
The legislation added a class of relationship called a “civil union” and elevates it to the same standing under law as has always been held by “marriage”, this undermines marriage by adding a further class of relationship with the same rights under law, but not the same responsibilities.
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“The morality of the West is based on Christianity and I don’t think we need to make any apologies for that.”[
partly….actually its the Greeks we have to thank for the best of our civilsation so far.And for much of human history Christianity advocated and enacted some of the most evil and heinous crim,es against man ….slavery,mass murder,torture,altruism…
“God is the only source of ‘objective morality’ as far as I can tell. Without God what do we have?”
Objective reality….the Universe about is is the only starting point we have for all else that follows……it is the ONLY OBSERVABLE AND MEASURABLE first cause we have to study.If you claim a God as a preceeding first cause then lets see him and here what it has to say….otherwise its the reality we live in that determines our natures requirements as species man…it sets the limits and absolutes we must respect if we wish to live as human beings should.
“Morality is reduced to nothing more than one’s personal preferences.’
And that would be wrong….Morality for man is to be found in observing the requirements of our natures as man and measuring against the only standard we can….mans life.
For example you want “drug legalization,euthanasia liberalisation et el coupled with a firm policy of personal responsibility”.
How can you possibly know that you are objectively right? How can drugs be a good thing?”
Its not the drugs….its mans right to take them via his natural rights to life ,liberty,property and to pursue happiness as he chooses…people have the right to be wrong,to make poor choices and suffer the consequences..
And the right to kill people? No doubt with their consent. For a while until,as in Holland,old people start being euthanised in hospital whether they have consented or not.”
Doesn’t change the fact that ones life belongs to ones self….and the right to end it too.And if another consents to assist thats perfectly fine..
“In fact it is belief in God that has allowed us to have a civilized society that has human rights. Why do humans have rights?
Because we are created in the image of God.”
See answer one.Unless you can put up this God for study then its objective reality that we must repaire to for our foundations.
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
“The big issue appears to be how to define what is truth? Are relativistically defined “human rights” a basis for truth? What happens when household pets spring “pet rights” and they clash with my “human rights”, e.g I want sleep but my dog wants to bark, what happens then?”
See previous answer to Scott….mans rights arise from mans nature as man….as determined by the only observable first cause….the Uninverse/reality.If you can show a supernatural prior cause to that then put it up…we’re waiting.
But then it would no longer be a supernatual cause and insted be a natural thing that could be studied and deconstructed….
“What happens when one New Zealanders view of truth conflicts with another? If everything is relative there is no fundamental basis for what is true, so there is no way of discerning which view genuinely represents truth.”
No argument from me.The disagreement between you,Scott and me is over the source of morality/mans nature and his rights….not that there is one.I belive in absolutes…they are found all through the reality about us…truth and false hood,life and death….
“You and I clearly see things differently, we have no common fundamental basis for agreeing or disagreeing as to what is true.”
see above answer.
“Jesus Christ came to earth, lived as a man, was crucified on a cross for the sin of all humanity (me and you included) rose to life. Historical facts – however uncomfortable you find them.”
Actually not facts at all….myths that have yet to be proven at all.Even the claim that a person called Jesus evey existed is based on flimsy evidence.
“So I respectfully disagree with your assertion regarding the basis of ghost worship. Real man, real death, real resurrection, real eternal king.”
Belive what you like….but reality doesn’t bend to whims and wishes…
> Try one that is based on objective reality and mans nature as man.
“Respectfully do not believe the point of view you are putting forward is objective, you have an inherent bias, your opinion reveals your bias.
If mans nature is the basis, how did mans nature come about?”
Reality/the universe about us….the foundation of all things,the only first cause open to mans study and knowledge..
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
From http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/
God
“The “concept” of God is usually defined by a lack of a definition. God is usually said to be unlimited in power, knowledge, and goodness and unknowable to us mere mortals; but these are all traits that are defined by a lack of something.
“God” is not a concept at all because it subsumes no particulars. Unlike a real concept, there is nothing in reality to which one can refer to and say, “That is God.” To be unlimited in power, omnipotence, is a contradiction. To be unlimited in goodness, omnibenevolence, is taken without any standard of good. Regarding God, it is said that God is good. What is good? God’s will. What characterizes God’s will? Goodness. That circle is without substance and meaningless. Some people claim that all these objections are silly because God is simply unknowable. How do they know that God is unknowable?
The notion of God is nothing but a big mixture of contradictions and nothingness. There is no meaning behind the word and no concept to even define.
We view with mirth the ancient Greeks and Egyptians and other peoples with their pantheons of various Gods controlling various aspects of the world. We laugh at contemporaries who claim to have been visited by aliens or seen Bigfoot. Some even laugh and deride those scientists who make claims with only a little evidence in support of their views. But what is truly ridiculous is the people who then turn around and say, “the belief in God is perfectly fine” either because someone they know believes it or because a large portion of the population believes it. Truth is not a social phenomenon. Reality is absolute and can only be understood through reason.
What is disappointing is not so much all of the faithful, but all those who sanction faith in others. To accept without comment this ridiculous self-contradicting life destroying nonsense in one’s peers and give it a sort of spiritual relativism sanction, to claim that each can believe whatever he wants, that one spiritual belief is just as valid as another — that is what perpetuates the evil of faith-based religions and notions.
The belief in God and the acting on that belief is evil. It divorces one’s knowledge and actions from reality, with consequences ranging from the trivial (wasting one morning a week) to the disastrous (crusades, having unwanted children, Israelis and Arabs slaughtering each other over a patch of desert, wasting one’s entire life working for a purpose not one’s own, etc.)
Many people who believe in God view him as a father figure. Like a father, he provides, he sets boundaries, and (like some fathers) he defines what one should do in life. Some, like the Existentialists, claim that without a God life has no meaning and it is “absurd”. They view life without God like the life of a toddler without a parent: arbitrary, wandering around in the muck, not knowing what to do or why, with no purpose, no end, and alone and unhappy. But, like all children, believers in God need to grow up. Life as an adult is much more rewarding than life as an infant.
Meaning is epistemological, not metaphysical or intrinsic. Different things have different meanings to different people based on the context of their experiences and goals. Purpose is an individual attribute. When one defines one’s own purpose, accomplishing it really means something, as opposed to accomplishing some seemingly random task set by a parent. Self-reliance, when one is responsible for one’s own life and lives it as an adult rather than as a parasitic dependant, is one of the most glorious aspects of existence; and finding friendship among one’s peers is far more rewarding than with an imaginary friend. All children should strive to give up their imaginary friends and face the world as confident adults, masters of their own lives, without need of psychological crutches.”
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
“If it wasn’t clear already the reason to not attend the dawn service was not simply a matter of lying in anything she could do to attack well founded Godly actions she would.”
Roughans point exactly. “Clark had no spiritual attitude to offer up even a prayer.”
This is what made her short of the glory of ‘great.’
She doesn’t have to be a Christian or pious, but she could give the faith of millions respect befitting of her office. That wouldn’t have made her great but it would’ve made her graceful and that is really good. When you can be graceful to your opponents you are on the road to greatness. She was never any of that. Innuendo, short of character assassination was always her tool. Her great benefactor Owen Glenn learnt that the hard way. In fact, we all learnt that lesson with him. To his loss he proved to us all her true colours, almost to the martrydom of his reputation.
She is not great, nowhere near it. She is a great communist, not a great Kiwi. She runs to smile with the Chinese and in the mosques. Her overt disdain of the Kiwi way is grossly evident. Sans NZ flag on her Prime Ministerial vehicle. (Restore the flag Mr Keys.) Great betrayer of the No. 8 wire philosophy that sets our identity and stands us apart from even white westernised Australia.
We are unique. Her communist veins greatly despised our uniqueness. We are haters and wreckers not worthy of her great ideals of dividing family, breeding fear and lawlessness and being our dear nanny.
Her greatness nearly smothered us, intellectually, politically, democratically, financially, emotionally.
If she was great we would have loved her, even in voting her out we would have loved her. She knew she was ruling without respect the whole of her last term. The veneer of her shine had gone. The rust was showing. Yet she pretended she was the one.
That wasn’t wise and that wasn’t great.
Vote:February 7th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
James, in times long ago people built castles to preserve their freedom from gangs of roaming predators. Those roaming predators are out there today still, in the form of the global socialist movement. Walls today hold those predators at bay the same way those stone walls did so many centuries ago. What are today’s walls made from? The family unit.
Nothing is any bigger obstacle to the control the totalitarian socialists seek than the family unit. That’s why so many of the strategies the left have used to break down resistance to their political ascendancy are designed to weaken that unit. When the Libertarians (and others) join the socialist forces in supporting ideas they call “socially liberal”, they’re in most cases, acting as Trojan Horses for socialist totalitarianism.
You claim to seek liberty. In truth, when you assault traditional Christian morality and Conservative ideology, you’re assisting those who would impose upon us big all powerful government, and in the end, tyranny and slavery.
Vote:February 8th, 2009 at 5:48 am
We are unique. Her communist veins greatly despised our uniqueness. We are haters and wreckers not worthy of her great ideals of dividing family, breeding fear and lawlessness and being our dear nanny.
Such well written prose. Nail on head time. WB.
She epitomised everything that can, could be sour with the human spirit.
Helen Clark is best watched on the youtube video when she claimed that she would never resort to personal attacks, and within 15 seconds had done exactly that! This is the actions of a woman with a huge personality disorder.
Her legacy will sit and rust around the sidings of NZ, for to be true very little else will be rembered.
As for her UN possibilities. As was posted earlier, who needs clean drinking water when there is so much fun to be had at a GAYOUT Mardi Gras. And all those books of learning that need rewriting to be placed from a GLBT point of view. Heteros are so dull!
Vote:February 8th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
“You claim to seek liberty. In truth, when you assault traditional Christian morality and Conservative ideology, you’re assisting those who would impose upon us big all powerful government, and in the end, tyranny and slavery.”
Quite the reverse Red….Christianity has a record of anti human evil that gives secular Socialism a run for its money.Both belive they know better than the individual how to organise their live and both resort to force when required.Its ‘conservatism” that tag teams with socialism to violate our rights……not Libertarianism.
Vote:February 8th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
“Christianity has a record of anti human evil that gives secular Socialism a run for its money.”
Please give an example.
“Both belive they know better than the individual how to organise their live and both resort to force when required.”
No they don’t. A completely false assertion, and if you don’t know the difference between the laisse faire philosphy that is part of the foundation of Conservatism, and is specified in such historical documents as the Declaration of Independence and The American Constitution, then you’re more ignorant of history than I thought. Conservatives were writing treatises on individual liberty and freedom when socialism was less than a gleam in the eye of Karl Marx’s great great great grandfather.
“Its ‘conservatism” that tag teams with socialism to violate our rights……not Libertarianism.
Not so. When you and other misguided so called “Libertarians” attack the family unit, you’re tag teaming with your Marxist mates, and assisting them in one of their primary milestones along the road to big government totalitarianism.
Vote:February 8th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
“Not so. When you and other misguided so called “Libertarians” attack the family unit, you’re tag teaming with your Marxist mates, and assisting them in one of their primary milestones along the road to big government totalitarianism.”
Libs aren’t attacking the “family unit”….they are attacking force mongers who claim the two parents ,two kids model is the only way to go….or any model that the mongers want to impose,and want to use the State to impose their preferences just as the socialists do….both should butt out.
“No they don’t. A completely false assertion, and if you don’t know the difference between the laisse faire philosphy that is part of the foundation of Conservatism, and is specified in such historical documents as the Declaration of Independence and The American Constitution, then you’re more ignorant of history than I thought.”
Trying to claim those documents as “conservative” shoots you case down beyond salvation. You are attemping to steal and graft ideas that were Liberal in the classic sense onto a stagnant conservative doctrine of God based authoritarianism.The founding fathers weren’t all Christians and were opposed to God being involved with the foundations of the US.They specifically stated that the US is NOT a Christian nation.They created a secular nation with liberty for all.
““Christianity has a record of anti human evil that gives secular Socialism a run for its money.”
Please give an example.”
The Crusades,the Old Testament bloodshed (if true),the inquistion,the rape of the Americas and the Genocide of its peoples,the endorsment and support of slavery till only a century odd back,the persecution of science and free thinkers who challenged Church orthodoxy,the subdugation of Women as second class to men,opposition to the rights of gays et el to marry and just exist as gay people etc etc etc….
Real “lovers of their fellow men “huh Red?
Vote:February 8th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
“The founding fathers weren’t all Christians and were opposed to God being involved with the foundations of the US.They specifically stated that the US is NOT a Christian nation.They created a secular nation with liberty for all.”
WTF is all that off topic crap about??
“The Crusades,the Old Testament bloodshed (if true) blah blah blah..
Thought so.. all bullshit… Liberty of course isn’t the real issue. Just another queer who hates anyone who doesn’t share their secular views and uses the so called Libertarians as a vehicle to express that hate.
Vote:February 8th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
And lets remember Thomas Jefferson, the great visionary founding father is never quoted and anathema to US politicians.
Obama never once quoted him.
Jefferson had the greatest insight as to where America would go if not leashed and held accountable. His quotations are directly opposite to where the White house took America and fulfill exactly where the White House did take America.
In fact, the truth being, is that the wrong man sits on the Lincoln memorial. Jeffersons seat was stolen because the White House never intended to uphold the ideals of peace, justice and the pursuit of happiness.
A brief perousal of Jeffersons ignored words will prove that immediately.
Vote:February 9th, 2009 at 3:56 am
“Thought so.. all bullshit… Liberty of course isn’t the real issue. Just another queer who hates anyoe who doesn’t share their secular views and uses the so called Libertarians as a vehicle to express that hate.”
Thought so……no answer so resorts to ad hominem attacks. Red……most of the time you are on the money….but sometimes…like now….you are a sellout,neo socialist shit bag with no backing who can’t admit that they are wrong…….
Golly! I have silenced Redbaiter and rendered him nurtered…..will I get a prize from the left…?
Ps….I am willing to have a hetrosexual “proof off ” anytime your levels of viagra make you think you could compete…girly man!
Vote: