Dastardly National Review

[Perianne]

The National Review. Bought and paid for by the Republican elite. Those who adhere to this trash will never be a true conservative.

The National Review's Charles Cooke compares Ted Cruz's rhetoric about immigration to Bill Clinton and Harry Reid. He also says the night belonged to Rubio and Bush. Cooke and the other sissy men at National Review are Republican elites. My least favorite at National Review is the putrid faux-conservative named Kevin Williamson. How I despise that rag.

Be warned: National Review is not for the true conservatives.


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428590/republican-debate-thoughts-rubio-and-jeb-winners?target=author&tid=23105

[Perianne]

Tonight on Fox, Karl Rove said he thought Rubio won the exchanges between Rubio and Cruz. Typical elitist mentality.

[fj1200]

Be warned: National Review is not for the true conservatives.

Why are you attacking conservatives?

[Kathianne]

Why are you attacking conservatives?

There's been some sort of litmus tests, only 'real' conservatives can pass. The rest of us are 'liberals,' just ask the 'true' conservatives. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Why are you attacking conservatives?

Where did she attack anyone? Was something edited that I missed? Did you also address any content of the OP? Or will this be another thread that instantly disintegrates again...

[Kathianne]

Where did she attack anyone? Was something edited that I missed? Did you also address any content of the OP? Or will this be another thread that instantly disintegrates again...
There are a few, not you Jim, that are saying who here, what outlets, which reporters and anchors are and aren't conservatives. That is what the response was about.

It's not only those who post for Trump that are being attacked, many times with no provocation than posting to a link.

[jimnyc]

There are a few, not you Jim, that are saying who here, what outlets, which reporters and anchors are and aren't conservatives. That is what the response was about.

It's not only those who post for Trump that are being attacked, many times with no provocation than posting to a link.

Be that as it may, that has nothing to do with what I asked him. He avoided the content 100% and implied that Peri was attacking conservatives. Might be better to discuss the content of articles, as opposed to instantly going to the individual and avoiding all content - no?

[PixieStix]

The National Review. Bought and paid for by the Republican elite. Those who adhere to this trash will never be a true conservative.

The National Review's Charles Cooke compares Ted Cruz's rhetoric about immigration to Bill Clinton and Harry Reid. He also says the night belonged to Rubio and Bush. Cooke and the other sissy men at National Review are Republican elites. My least favorite at National Review is the putrid faux-conservative named Kevin Williamson. How I despise that rag.

Be warned: National Review is not for the true conservatives.


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428590/republican-debate-thoughts-rubio-and-jeb-winners?target=author&tid=23105

National Review is always wrong, it is a rag, I agree, and no it is not for true conservatives

Rubio and Bush? :laugh:Did they watch a different planets debate? :laugh:

Rubio may have came in 3rd, but nothing more. He sides with hillary and obama on immigration. And Jeb Bush is barely on the radar

[Kathianne]

Be that as it may, that has nothing to do with what I asked him. He avoided the content 100% and implied that Peri was attacking conservatives. Might be better to discuss the content of articles, as opposed to instantly going to the individual and avoiding all content - no?

This thread is about why a very conservative magazine and online presence is wholly not conservative-based upon nothing but a statement of opinion. For disagreeing, labeled attacking the OP.

[jimnyc]

Why are you attacking conservatives?


This thread is about why a very conservative magazine and online presence is wholly not conservative-based upon nothing but a statement of opinion. For disagreeing, labeled attacking the OP.

Please point out where the disagreement was in the above post...

[PixieStix]

This thread is about why a very conservative magazine and online presence is wholly not conservative-based upon nothing but a statement of opinion. For disagreeing, labeled attacking the OP.

I used to get the National Review. They are mostly Libertarian. I stopped reading them when I realized that. Because I believe we are a nation of laws.

[Kathianne]

Please point out where the disagreement was in the above post...

I don't know where this is going, I'm going to stop. Merry Christmas.

[jimnyc]

I don't know where this is going, I'm going to stop. Merry Christmas.

That's 2x in 2 days that you have made comments and then preferred to disappear than answer polite comments about them. I don't think I was rude to you at all. Sorry you can't backup your own comments, or that it makes you angry that someone expected such. I'll be sure to avoid your posts for now so as not to waste my time. I think you've made it more than abundantly clear how you feel anyway, especially about the Trump supporters who disagree with you.

[Perianne]

I started this thread for the purpose of educating others. I don't think less of them for not having the knowledge that I have.

Doesn't the bible say "A princess will lead them"? :)

A big part of Nursing is education of patients. If I tell a patient that not controlling his blood sugar will have only negative consequences, and he chooses not to listen, it is not my fault he chooses not to listen.

As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Such is the burden I have to carry.

[fj1200]

Where did she attack anyone? Was something edited that I missed? Did you also address any content of the OP? Or will this be another thread that instantly disintegrates again...

What about the OP was not an attack? That was the primary content of the OP. Whether it disintegrates or not will not be of my doing.

As far as the link, it was one guy's opinion and didn't seem to warrant the vitriol slung at it and NR.

[fj1200]

I used to get the National Review. They are mostly Libertarian. I stopped reading them when I realized that. Because I believe we are a nation of laws.

Libertarians are conservative and do believe in the rule of law. You should re-up your subscription.


I started this thread for the purpose of educating others.

Nothing you provided would led to your stated goal.

[Drummond]

Libertarians are conservative and do believe in the rule of law.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Dream on.

http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/libertarianism.html#A5


How do libertarians differ from "conservatives"?

For starters, by not being conservative. Most libertarians have no interest in returning to an idealized past. More generally, libertarians hold no brief for the right wing's rather overt militarist, racist, sexist, and authoritarian tendencies and reject conservative attempts to "legislate morality" with censorship, drug laws, and obnoxious Bible-thumping. Though libertarians believe in free-enterprise capitalism, we also refuse to stooge for the military-industrial complex as conservatives are wont to do.

FJ, Libertarians have such a hatred for Conservatism that, even in trying to justify this, they demonise in the attempt. The above quote from the link I've provided says volumes about that.

Claim to be a Libertarian, FJ, and you therefore instantly claim to NOT be a Conservative. QED.

Oh, and as for their belief in 'the law', they get just a bit 'fuzzy' on the subject when pressed. Even so, the truth can be worked out ...


Do libertarians want to abolish the government?

Libertarians want to abolish as much government as they practically can. About 3/4 are "minarchists" who favor stripping government of most of its accumulated power to meddle, leaving only the police and courts for law enforcement and a sharply reduced military for national defense (nowadays some might also leave special powers for environmental enforcement). The other 1/4 (including the author of this FAQ) are out-and-out anarchists who believe that "limited government" is a delusion and the free market can provide better law, order, and security than any government monopoly.

[Black Diamond]

National Review is always wrong, it is a rag, I agree, and no it is not for true conservatives

Rubio and Bush? :laugh:Did they watch a different planets debate? :laugh:

Rubio may have came in 3rd, but nothing more. He sides with hillary and obama on immigration. And Jeb Bush is barely on the radar
Yeah I haven't had a chance to watch the debate.. Lot going on. But the consensus seems to be that Cruz kicked rubios ass up and down the sidewalk.

[fj1200]

Dream on.

Libertarians are idealized conservatives, they will never be elected and are thus not really part of the question. But your source is suspect in that he isn't really a libertarian; he's an anarchist. You also overstate who and what he is:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/graphics/esr002.png


There are a number of standard questions about libertarianism that have been periodically resurfacing in the politics groups for years. This posting attempts to answer some of them. I make no claim that the answers are complete, nor that they reflect a (nonexistent) unanimity among libertarians; the issues touched on here are tremendously complex. This posting will be useful, however, if it successfully conveys the flavor of libertarian thought and gives some indication of what most libertarians believe.

These guys would have been a better source. But I digress, there is a whole other thread on Libertarians. That being said, there are some crazy A* Libertarians out there.

[Drummond]

Libertarians are idealized conservatives

They are not Conservatives AT ALL. You claim to be a Libertarian ? Much of your time here, 'as one', has been taken up with attacking other Conservatives here.

As an 'idealised' Conservative, you should readily subscribe to Conservative ideals ? Well, you've claimed to be 'The One True Thatcherite' .. and certainly, Mrs Thatcher held to Conservative ideals (nobody could credibly claim otherwise). Yet, you're in sharp disagreement with the truth of her leadership performance .. she readily used State powers to curb Union freedoms.

By no stretch of the imagination could what she did be called 'Libertarian' .. yet, you've claimed to be a particularly strong advocate of hers. So, (a) Margaret Thatcher herself provided proof that Conservatives and Libertarians were NOT the same, and (b) you lacked the integrity from which ideals spring, by being disreputable enough to try and keep that disparate nonsense going.

If Libertarians are 'idealised', you fail that test.

If you ARE a Libertarian, you do not follow Conservative thinking or methodology. You fail that test as well.


But your source is suspect in that he isn't really a libertarian; he's an anarchist.

Well, HE claims that he IS. This 'I do not match what I say is true of me' does seem to be a common failing .. doesn't it, if I believe you in this ?

And I've noted that you've written off 25% of the Libertarian Movement at a stroke. Because they're an embarrassingly informative contingent ?


You also overstate who and what he is

RUBBISH. I've just quoted his material !


there are some crazy A* Libertarians out there.

This is perhaps the most convincing defence you can make of your 'Libertarian' bona fides, FJ.:rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There's been some sort of litmus tests, only 'real' conservatives can pass. The rest of us are 'liberals,' just ask the 'true' conservatives. :laugh2:

NO LITMUS TEST.
NAME ONE PERSON HERE, THAT HAS DECLARED YOU ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE, NOT SMART, NOT A DAMN FINE PERSON!
Do so and I will make it my new hobby to destroy that person's credibility and point that person's failure in judging true character.
We disagree on who we support as is both our rights to do.
I make this point openly and repeatedly myself--
Millions of conservative/Republican supporters are carrying the water for the dems and helping the dems in their destroy Trump campaign. And thats true even if thats not their intent.
I will vote for whichever Republican candidate wins the nomination.
Just that simple with me. I prefer Trump because I know that he has the guts and bravado to do as much as he can to return the greatness of this nation. Only Cruz in my estimation will rigidly and doggedly seek to do the same..-Tyr

[Gunny]

Libertarians are idealized conservatives, they will never be elected and are thus not really part of the question. But your source is suspect in that he isn't really a libertarian; he's an anarchist. You also overstate who and what he is:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/graphics/esr002.png



These guys would have been a better source. But I digress, there is a whole other thread on Libertarians. That being said, there are some crazy A* Libertarians out there.

I think people need to quit getting hung up on labels. I don't know what a "true conservative" is anymore than anyone knows what a "true liberal" is. That's why I use the terms "left" and "right" because neither embody the definitions of their labels.

[Black Diamond]

I think people need to quit getting hung up on labels. I don't know what a "true conservative" is anymore than anyone knows what a "true liberal" is. That's why I use the terms "left" and "right" because neither embody the definitions of their labels.

Where would you put Ted Kaczynski on the left-right scale? They said he was far right.

[Gunny]

Where would you put Ted Kaczynski on the left-right scale? They said he was far right.

I wouldn't put him on the left-right scale at all. He was/is a psychopath. Didn't he have a malfunction about technology? Hell, I don't like it. I HATE smart phones. All you see is people with their faces stuck in their phones with no regard for real people around them.

I'm not going to murder people over it. That boy just ain't wired right.

[Black Diamond]

I wouldn't put him on the left-right scale at all. He was/is a psychopath. Didn't he have a malfunction about technology? Hell, I don't like it. I HATE smart phones. All you see is people with their faces stuck in their phones with no regard for real people around them.

I'm not going to murder people over it. That boy just ain't wired right.
Yeah he was a math professor at Berkeley. He ended up in a cabin in Montana somewhere. I don't even think he had running water.

[Gunny]

Yeah he was a math professor at Berkeley. He ended up in a cabin in Montana somewhere. I don't even think he had running water.

He had no utilities at all. IIRC, he'd bicycle it to the bus station and take the bus to the next state over to mail his bombs. For someone that did like technology, a mail bomb is pretty sophisticated.

[Elessar]

Be that as it may, that has nothing to do with what I asked him. He avoided the content 100% and implied that Peri was attacking conservatives. Might be better to discuss the content of articles, as opposed to instantly going to the individual and avoiding all content - no?

Attack the content and not the poster/OP.

Simple Forum etiquette.

[Gunny]

Attack the content and not the poster/OP.

Simple Forum etiquette.

I agree. Then you have to factor in the poster. Some take attacking what they like as personally as if you attacked them.

[fj1200]

They are not Conservatives AT ALL.

You're free to be wrong about Libertarians; there is a whole different thread about it. Nevertheless this thread is about NR and there is no doubt about the combination of conservative and libertarian, because they share major similarities, viewpoints that were the bedrock of its founding by William F. Buckley.


Political views (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review#Political_views)Victor Davis Hanson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson), a regular contributor since 2001, sees a broad spectrum of conservative, anti-liberal contributors:
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px;"><dd style="margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">In other words, a wide conservative spectrum — paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, tea-party enthusiasts, the deeply religious and the agnostic, both libertarians and social conservatives, free-marketeers and the more protectionist — characterizes National Review. The common requisite is that they present their views as a critique of prevailing liberal orthodoxy but do so analytically and with decency and respect.[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review#cite_note-27)</dd></dl>The magazine has been described as "the bible of American conservatism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States)".[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review#cite_note-TitanicReshufflingDeckChairsNRCruise-NewRepublic-28)

There is plenty more to refute your imagination if you'd bother to look but to characterize a Buckley creation as libertarian as leftie is laughably ignorant.

[Drummond]

You're free to be wrong about Libertarians;

Gee, thanks .. most 'kind' of you !!


there is a whole different thread about it.

Indeed there is. You didn't do too well on that one either, as I recall.


Nevertheless this thread is about NR and there is no doubt about the combination of conservative and libertarian, because they share major similarities, viewpoints that were the bedrock of its founding by William F. Buckley.

It's 'inspiring' to find you so concerned about thread integrity, FJ. Very well done ! Will we also see this from you in the future ? OR ... is it because you have difficulty in coping with the comments I'm making, seeming to be credible in the face of them ?

'No matter'. You keep on caring about keeping strictly to thread subjects .. it does you proud, my son ... :rolleyes:


There is plenty more to refute your imagination if you'd bother to look but to characterize a Buckley creation as libertarian as leftie is laughably ignorant.

... or, er'm, maybe not ... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

If it's all my 'imagination', FJ, then prepare to 'somehow' observe an illusion .. since the following 'cannot possibly exist' .. :laugh::laugh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism


Left-libertarianism (or left-wing libertarianism) names several related but distinct approaches to political and social theory, which stress both individual freedom and social equality. In its oldest usage, left-libertarianism is a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics, either anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular. It later became associated with free-market libertarians when Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess reached out to the New Left in the 1960s. This left-wing market anarchism, which includes Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism and Samuel Edward Konkin III's agorism, appeals to left-wing concerns such as egalitarianism, gender and sexuality, class, immigration, and environmentalism. Most recently, left-libertarianism refers to mostly non-anarchist political positions associated with Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs, and Peter Vallentyne that combine self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.

[fj1200]

Indeed there is. You didn't do too well on that one either, as I recall.

You spent that thread proving you know nothing about Libertarians and not very much about conservatives either for that matter.

[reason10]

The National Review. Bought and paid for by the Republican elite. Those who adhere to this trash will never be a true conservative.

The National Review's Charles Cooke compares Ted Cruz's rhetoric about immigration to Bill Clinton and Harry Reid. He also says the night belonged to Rubio and Bush. Cooke and the other sissy men at National Review are Republican elites. My least favorite at National Review is the putrid faux-conservative named Kevin Williamson. How I despise that rag.

Be warned: National Review is not for the true conservatives.


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428590/republican-debate-thoughts-rubio-and-jeb-winners?target=author&tid=23105

Old William Buckley would be turning over in his grave if he could see what the RINOS have done to his publication.

[Perianne]

The National Review's wussyboy editor, Rich Lowry (who also contributes to the liberal Politico), now has decided to devote an issue to Trump. The upcoming issue's cover says "Against Trump" and apparently will feature more than 20 essays from "conservative" thinkers about why we must stop Trump and instead vote for some elitist candidate like JEB or Marco Polo.

Here are a few ways The National Review could be useful:

If you wad the pages up, crinkle them repeatedly, until the paper is soft, it could be used for toilet paper when SHTF.

It can be used to start a fire in your fireplace.

You can use the pages to clean up a dog's accident.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-nationalreview-218079

[Perianne]

National Review was asked by the RNC to partner in the GOP debates. We agreed. Our initial partner was NBC, with whom we were to help moderate the pre–Super Tuesday debate, originally to be held on February 26 in Houston, then suspended by the RNC in retribution over the antics of CNBC moderators in its now infamous debate last month. A new main host was picked this week — CNN. National Review was to partner, along with Salem Radio and Telemundo, the debate rescheduled for February 25.

Tonight, a top official with the RNC called me to say that National Review was being disinvited. The reason: Our “Against Trump“ editorial and symposium. We expected this was coming. Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/430166/houston-we-have-problem

[fj1200]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-nationalreview-218079


"Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones,” the editorial reads.

Sounds about right.


For movement conservatives, Lowry said, the choice is clear: Anybody but Trump.

“We’ve spent our lifetimes opposing poll-driven Republicans, and here’s a guy who’s the single most poll-obsessed politician in the history of the United States, judging by what he says,” Lowry said. “And we’re going to put him in the White House and expect him to stand by anything he’s said? It’s an insane gamble.”

They sound like they're anti-RINO. There's something to be said for being ideologically consistent.

[reason10]

Tonight on Fox, Karl Rove said he thought Rubio won the exchanges between Rubio and Cruz. Typical elitist mentality.

Remember that in the last election Rove spent about $300 million on a candidate and LOST. Who wants to take that fat idiot's advice?

[Black Diamond]

Remember that in the last election Rove spent about $300 million on a candidate and LOST. Who wants to take that fat idiot's advice?

He got Bush elected twice. He's ruthless.

[Gunny]

There are a few, not you Jim, that are saying who here, what outlets, which reporters and anchors are and aren't conservatives. That is what the response was about.

It's not only those who post for Trump that are being attacked, many times with no provocation than posting to a link.

I plead guilty where it concerns people that don't exhibit conservative values. Conservatism DOES have core values.

[Abbey Marie]

I think people need to quit getting hung up on labels. I don't know what a "true conservative" is anymore than anyone knows what a "true liberal" is. That's why I use the terms "left" and "right" because neither embody the definitions of their labels.


Great post, Gunny. :clap:

By MY definition, anyone who is not socially conservative could be considered not a "true" Conservative. But for many people, low taxes and small spending are what true conservatism is all about, For others, it's all about small government in all its manifestations. They may even be fine with gay marriage and abortion.

Anyone who says one of these groups is conservative, and the other is not, is just silly. Why do some people look for exclusionary definitions of conservatism? Why not look for the things we have in common and try to defeat the common enemy? Things change. Societies change. I would prefer not to vote for people who espouse some of these views, but I am still conservative, and more importantly, I do not going around complaining that they are not true conservatives. I just put my support elsewhere, within the Republican party, to defeat the Dems.

PS Let's see if this thread can go not-personal.

[Gunny]

Great post, Gunny. :clap:

By MY definition, anyone who is not socially conservative could be considered not a "true" Conservative. But for many people, low taxes and small spending are what true conservatism is all about, For others, it's all about small government in all its manifestations. They may even be fine with gay marriage and abortion.

Anyone who says one of these groups is conservative, and the other is not, is just silly. Why do some people look for exclusionary definitions of conservatism? Why not look for the things we have in common and try to defeat the common enemy? Things change. Societies change. I would prefer not to vote for people who espouse some of these views, but I am still conservative, and more importantly, I do not going around complaining that they are not true conservatives. I just put my support elsewhere, within the Republican party, to defeat the Dems.

PS Let's see if this thread can go not-personal.

I've tried to keep it impersonal, but the fact is, this same infighting is the very thing going by the entire right. I express a pOV and the people that have a different one feel threatened or insulted by it. All factions on the right are acting like the left. Agree or we will hate on you.

[aboutime]

The National Review's wussyboy editor, Rich Lowry (who also contributes to the liberal Politico), now has decided to devote an issue to Trump. The upcoming issue's cover says "Against Trump" and apparently will feature more than 20 essays from "conservative" thinkers about why we must stop Trump and instead vote for some elitist candidate like JEB or Marco Polo.

Here are a few ways The National Review could be useful:

If you wad the pages up, crinkle them repeatedly, until the paper is soft, it could be used for toilet paper when SHTF.

It can be used to start a fire in your fireplace.

You can use the pages to clean up a dog's accident.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-nationalreview-218079



Perianne. It's called subversion. The Dems are really good at it. Lowry plays both sides of the aisle, and their biggest threat to their pretend games of GOP conservativism is TRUMP.
He hasn't been afraid to "CALL A SPADE, A SPADE" so to speak. And the GOP can't understand HOW, or WHY so many Americans (part of the silent majority of old), have fallen behind Trump so much.
Americans who can THINK, and want to bring the AMERICA we all knew back, are listening to Trump because he voices what they think. If...and only IF, one of the other candidates would step forward...stop worrying about WHAT other politicians think, and start speaking to the American people. Someone else could take Trump out of the running. BUT....whoever does that. NEEDS A HUGE PAIR OF GONADS. Otherwise. Trump will go up against HILLARY for sure.

WE DO NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. Hillary must first get her new residence in GITMO.

[Nukeman]

Back to the original post on the "National Review" it started as a true magazine for conservatives. William F. Buckley started it and was attacked by the other media for his stances, If you go back and watch the 1968 elections and the war between William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal it was a different time. Today the NR is a crap rag that really doesn't have much to do with core conservative values only trying to sell a copy..

Watch the film "Best of Enemies" great on how we used to debate not this crap they try to spew today....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzgfQvB2dvA

[fj1200]

Today the NR is a crap rag that really doesn't have much to do with core conservative values only trying to sell a copy..

How so? It seems to me that they're trying to stay true.

Here's the link to the anti-trump thing.

Conservatives against Trump (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination)

[Nukeman]

How so? It seems to me that they're trying to stay true.

Here's the link to the anti-trump thing.

Conservatives against Trump (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination)Its MY opinion don't have to justify it, it is what it is...

[NightTrain]

The only person I admire at NR is Victor Davis Hansen.

He'll have no shortage of outlets if/when he decides to bail.

[fj1200]

Its MY opinion don't have to justify it, it is what it is...

OK. :unsure:

[Gunny]

The only person I admire at NR is Victor Davis Hansen.

He'll have no shortage of outlets if/when he decides to bail.

I like the blonde with the giant glasses on Greg Gutfeld. Last name is Timpf. She's a hoot.:laugh:

[PixieStix]

They have apparently felt it necessary to attack Trump supporters. Absolutely shameful

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/26/2863193/


Thomas Aquinas cautioned against “homo unius libri,” a warning that would not get very far with the typical Trump voter stuck sniggering over “homo.” (They’d snigger over “snigger,” too, for similar reasons.) Thomas’s “man of one book” is a familiar type to conservatives; often enough, that book is Atlas Shrugged, or The Fair Tax Book, or, for the more sophisticated sort, Economics in One Lesson. (There are more people who have read about the works of Hayek and Mises than have read the works themselves.) But a man of one book has something: William Shakespeare made more from his reading of Plutarch than most men could make of the Library of Congress, and a reader who has truly digested the Bible, or Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, or Capitalism and Freedom has something, having consumed with any one of those works not only the work itself but the works that nourished the authors.

[revelarts]

It seems to me like a lot of "conservative" publications and sites the NR is a mixed bag.
It definitely has a it's particular lean, but to say it's not conservative doesn't make sense.

I wish people would just say they don't LIKE what this conservative or that said. it'd be more honest.
rather than pretend everyone should SHUN the NR because it's saying bad things about Trump OMG!!
criticisms!! HOW DARE THEY?!!:eek:
If it doesn't fit your particular flavor of "conservative" deal with it.

NR has never been very socially conservative i believe, though they do acknowledge God. they haven't been very HIGH on constitutional issues either I believe. But they've held the line on communism and socialism pretty well. and been pretty strong on free markets and the like in their own way. I think over the years conservatism in general has been stronger WITH the NR than it would have been without it.

I think the National Review has done more for the conservative movement than Donald Trump that's for sure.

Having said that I'm not their biggest fan. they are bit to neo-con for me. But I couldn't honestly dismiss them as a "rag" because they don't support my favorite candidate. that's just not fair.

[revelarts]

love the article Conservatives against Trump.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination

But I have to say seeing William Kistol and Karl Rove against Trump almost makes me wonder if i need to take 2nd look at him.
I really do not like those guys. Kistol, Rove, Chenney Sith Lords in my book.

But here are a couple quotes and people i really like.

http://c7.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_NRO_Medved.jpg

http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_NRO_Sowell.jpg

[Black Diamond]

love the article Conservatives against Trump.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination

But I have to say seeing William Kistol and Karl Rove against Trump almost makes me wonder if i need to take 2nd look at him.
I really do not like those guys. Kistol, Rove, Chenney Sith Lords in my book.

But here are a couple quotes and people i really like.

http://c7.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_NRO_Medved.jpg

http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_NRO_Sowell.jpg

If you don't like it, tell all but Rubio and Cruz to drop out. And tell fox news to limit the debate to Cruz, Rubio, and Trump. Otherwise it's all over..

If it isn't already.

[revelarts]

Libertarians are idealized conservatives, they will never be elected and are thus not really part of the question. ...

These guys would have been a better source. But I digress, there is a whole other thread on Libertarians. That being said, there are some crazy A* Libertarians out there.


Belated reply time ...

well FJ,
today's Conservatives are half baked and compromised Libertarians, they will be elected but as they are, they not really part of the solution. Since they never follow through except for their paid donors.

Even though there are some crazy A* Conservatives that want to kill all muslims, spy on all americans, torture, and the like.

[fj1200]

Belated reply time ...

well FJ,
today Conservatives are half baked and compromised Libertarians, they will be elected but as they are they not really part of the solution. Since they never follow through except for their paid donors.

Even though there are some crazy A* Conservatives that want to kill all muslims and the like.

Not quite sure what to make off most of that, some agreement and some disagreement I'm sure, but as to the bold; I give you the 1994 Republican class who did have some follow through. I think that there are some pretty strong conservatives in Congress and at the state level who would follow through with some meaningful change if we can capture the White House.

[revelarts]

Not quite sure what to make off most of that, some agreement and some disagreement I'm sure, but as to the bold; I give you the 1994 Republican class who did have some follow through. I think that there are some pretty strong conservatives in Congress and at the state level who would follow through with some meaningful change if we can capture the White House.

I just couldn't let slide your blanket DIS of libertarians.

there have been libertarian governors and congress people ELECTED. And they have done well and moved the "conservative ball and held the line" ever here of Ron Paul?

And I just don't get people's knee jerk 'Tut Tut snif sniff' rejection of 3rd party candidates while at the same time voting for DO NOTHING Republicans again and again..

FJ look, you have to go back to 1994 to find a group of them that did A LITTLE something, but dropped the ball on much of what they promised.

it's sad.

[fj1200]

I just couldn't let slide your blanket DIS of libertarians.

there have been libertarian governors and congress people ELECTED. And they have done well ands moved the "conservative ball and held the line" ever here of Ron Paul?

And I just don't get people's knee jerk 'Tut Tut snif sniff' rejection of 3rd party candidates while at the same time voting for DO NOTHING Republicans again and again..

FJ look you have to go back to 1994 to find a group of them that did A LITTLE something, but dropped the ball on much of what they promised.

it's sad.

Ah, it wasn't a blanket dis though. Only noting some reality. :poke: We need some electoral reform to see any third party momentum IMO.

In '94 the Contract with America promised votes on 10? issues; I think they kept the promise for the most part. The coming off the rails started in '00 arguably which was unfortunate and led to them losing their way and control of Congress.

[Perianne]

The only person I admire at NR is Victor Davis Hansen.

He'll have no shortage of outlets if/when he decides to bail.

I have read many of Hansen's writings that indicate he is unlike the rest of the NR staff.

[fj1200]

I have read many of Hansen's writings that indicate he is unlike the rest of the NR staff.

It's a shame when small government conservatives catch such disdain.

[Kathianne]

It's a shame when small government conservatives catch such disdain.

Yeah, but from non-conservatives that think they are conservatives.

[aboutime]

Everyone here can laugh at me, diss me if you like, ignore my words, call me crazy, or looney. But NOBODY, and I do mean NOBODY here is willing to actually mention, or dare talk about WHAT IF'S...such as..."WHAT IF all of the whining, complaining, hate for Trump, hate for conservatives, hate for Republicans actually PAYS OFF for Liberals, Democrats, Socialists, and America haters like CLINTON...Winning the praise, and votes of the OVERLY UNEDUCATED, GENERALLY STUPID Americans who aren't smart enough to get out of their own way, tie their shoes, or not stick their fingers in electrical sockets???

We have to remember. No matter how much many of you hate TRUMP.

The alternative can, and probably WILL mean the end of everything WE ALL KNOW TODAY, as The United States of America.

If that is what many of you want. I am almost happy to welcome the facts that I WON'T BE ALIVE TOO LONG after that to say...."I TOLD YOU SO!"

[Perianne]

The only person I admire at NR is Victor Davis Hansen.



I have read many of Hansen's writings that indicate he is unlike the rest of the NR staff.
@NightTrain (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=89), you are correct again, sir. Today, I read a great piece by VDH that excoriates his "conservative" co-writers. It is well worth reading.


Some NeverTrump critics would prefer a Trump electoral disaster that still could redeem their warnings that he would destroy the Republican party; barring that, increasingly many would at least settle to be disliked, but controversial, spoilers in a 1–2 percent loss to Hillary rather than irrelevant in a Trump win.

Indeed, I think here we have people that would prefer anyone BUT Trump. And then they can say (as is common for them) "I told you so".

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440198/never-nevertrump-not-voting-trump-republican-suicide?target=author&tid=900280

[Perianne]

David French


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9407&stc=1

This jerk, a writer at National Review, was on C-SPAN's Washington Journal today. One month before the election and all the National Review is good for is to continue to bash Trump.

I understand some of our posters are heavily influenced by the rag, and it explains a lot.

[fj1200]

I understand some of our posters are heavily influenced by the rag, and it explains a lot.

Who would those folks be?

[aboutime]

Who would those folks be?


Answer: Only those who come here to ask Who would those folks be?