Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

Precisely, Paul. Kira has at least seven personalities on this forum, I've actually read where she argues with herself. She exhibits text book MPD. I don't even read her posts anymore, she expects us to play Jesus to the lepers in her head. 🙄

saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

banner, I think you got it wrong. She is a Russian. She claims to have a personal relationship with Putin, and for all I know, she probably does. She is highly critical of this country and its vital interests, while she thinks that Putin is a great leader. What really bothers me is that she puts people that are critical of Putin and/or Russia on her ignore list. If she continues to do that, she will be posting to herself. I advise all OPP posters whether they are conservative or liberal to read her posts. Those of you that believe that Russia is a friend of ours because Trump refuses to criticize Putin may change their mind about Putin!

Carol Kelly

I agree.

Nickolai

We love this country as much as any conservative its just we have a different way of looking at and seeing the world. Liberals were put here to Inovate, Electricity, automation, computers, smart phones, TV's, washing machines, the weekend, child labor laws, ect,ect, Conservatives were put to stand athwart history shouting STOP

E

We love this country as much as any liberal its just we have a different way of looking at and seeing the world. Conservative are capitalists who created the freedom to innovate through the right to make a profit from their hard work, innovation and investment in capital and time. Liberals want to take advantage of others work, without working. Conservatives and capitalists have given us many forms of automation, computers, smart phones, TV's, washing machines, automobiles, oil, gas and coal production, railroads, air planes, etc. All created with the idea of a profit for their investments. Liberals created more Government that produces nothing but sucks up your profits and wages. They also create more government programs that they manage inefficiently as they suck up ever more of your money to help those that can't take care of myself ( like charities used to do), while they create more of those that won't take care of them selves. Liberals just stand there shouting Gimmie, gimmie, gimmee

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

I love this country, too. But it is diseased and the disease has metastasized and spread. If we ignore it, we are destined to die of it, as a country.

E

I love this country, too. And yes, it is diseased and the disease has metastasized and spread. If we ignore it, we are destined to die of it, as a country. You are right. And I believe that the last POS POTUS was like sending Typhoid Mary loose in a crowd, and in our schools and factories, etc. That is why so many people v**ed for Donald Trump as president. He may come off as a country bumpkin Doctor, but he was the one trying to stop Typhoid Mary, secure our borders, throw out the diseases like illegal invaders, cut our taxes, stop phony cures like ACA and get back to real cures like independently taking care of your own health and self. That country bumpkin Doctor might not succeed because all of the institutionalized doctors with their control instincts (Democrats and Congress) instead of freedom instincts (Conservatives), might stop good medicine.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Your statement is composed of equal parts unprovable assertions and obfuscation. There is no evidence of superiority of liberals or conservatives with regard to innovation or inventiveness nor any evidence that your world view is any more conducive to these traits than any other. Your last statement was taken out of context from William Buckley's Mission Statement for The National Review. The statement should be read in its entirety to understand the analogy Buckley was making. He had some extremely prescient remarks about C*******m and Liberalism in that statement. To save you the trouble of looking it up, read and learn from an extemely intelligent man.

Our Mission Statement
by William F. Buckley Jr. November 19, 1955 8:00 AM

There is, we like to think, solid reason for rejoicing. Prodigious efforts, by many people, are responsible for National Review. But since it will be the policy of this magazine to reject the hypodermic approach to world affairs, we may as well start out at once, and admit that the joy is not unconfined.

Let’s face it: Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible that did National Review not exist, no one would have invented it. The launching of a conservative weekly journal of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of conservatism at first glance looks like a work of supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that, of course; if National Review is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

National Review is out of place, in the sense that the United Nations and the League of Women V**ers and the New York Times and Henry Steele Commager are in place. It is out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation. Instead of covetously consolidating its premises, the United States seems tormented by its tradition of fixed postulates having to do with the meaning of existence, with the relationship of the state to the individual, of the individual to his neighbor, so clearly enunciated in the enabling documents of our Republic.

“I happen to prefer champagne to ditchwater,” said the benign old wrecker of the ordered society, Oliver Wendell Holmes, “but there is no reason to suppose that the cosmos does.” We have come around to Mr. Holmes’ view, so much so that we feel gentlemanly doubts when asserting the superiority of capitalism to socialism, of republicanism to centralism, of champagne to ditchwater — of anything to anything. (How curious that one of the doubts one is not permitted is whether, at the margin, Mr. Holmes was a useful citizen!) The inroads that relativism has made on the American soul are not so easily evident. One must recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things.

Run just about everything. There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals’. Drop a little itching powder in Jimmy Wechsler’s bath and before he has scratched himself for the third time, Arthur Schlesinger will have denounced you in a dozen books and speeches, Archibald MacLeish will have written ten heroic cantos about our age of terror, Harper’s will have published them, and everyone in sight will have been nominated for a Freedom Award. Conservatives in this country — at least those who have not made their peace with the New Deal, and there is serious question whether there are others — are non-licensed nonconformists; and this is dangerous business in a Liberal world, as every editor of this magazine can readily show by pointing to his scars. Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by the Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity.

There are, thank Heaven, the exceptions. There are those of generous impulse and a sincere desire to encourage a responsible dissent from the Liberal orthodoxy. And there are those who recognize that when all is said and done, the market place depends for a license to operate freely on the men who issue licenses — on the politicians. They recognize, therefore, that efficient getting and spending is itself impossible except in an atmosphere that encourages efficient getting and spending. And back of all political institutions there are moral and philosophical concepts, implicit or defined. Our political economy and our high-energy industry run on large, general principles, on ideas — not by day-to-day guess work, expedients and improvisations. Ideas have to go into exchange to become or remain operative; and the medium of such exchange is the printed word. A vigorous and incorruptible journal of conservative opinion is — dare we say it? — as necessary to better living as Chemistry.

We begin publishing, then, with a considerable stock of experience with the irresponsible Right, and a despair of the int***sigence of the Liberals, who run this country; and all this in a world dominated by the jubilant single-mindedness of the practicing C*******t, with his inside track to History. All this would not appear to augur well for National Review. Yet we start with a considerable — and considered — optimism. After all, we crashed through. More than one hundred and twenty investors made this magazine possible, and over fifty men and women of small means, invested less than one thousand dollars apiece in it. Two men and one woman, all three with overwhelming personal and public commitments, worked round the clock to make publication possible. A score of professional writers pledged their dev**ed attention to its needs, and hundreds of thoughtful men and women gave evidence that the appearance of such a journal as we have in mind would profoundly affect their lives.

Our own views, as expressed in a memorandum drafted a year ago, and directed to our investors, are set forth in an adjacent column. We have nothing to offer but the best that is in us. That, a thousand Liberals who read this sentiment will say with relief, is clearly not enough! It isn’t enough. But it is at this point that we steal the march. For we offer, besides ourselves, a position that has not grown old under the weight of a gigantic, parasitic bureaucracy, a position untempered by the doctoral dissertations of a generation of Ph.D’s in social architecture, unattenuated by a thousand vulgar promises to a thousand different pressure groups, uncorroded by a cynical contempt for human freedom. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaves us just about the hottest thing in town.

The Magazine’s Credenda

Among our convictions: It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government(the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.

The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of T***h, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that t***h is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring e******n results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.

The century’s most blatant force of satanic utopianism is c*******m. We consider “coexistence” with c*******m neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable; we find ourselves irrevocably at war with c*******m and shall oppose any substitute for victory.

The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than “newness”) and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity).

The most alarming single danger to the American political system lies in the fact that an identifiable team of Fabian operators is bent on controlling both our major political parties(under the sanction of such fatuous and unreasoned slogans as “national unity,” “middle-of-the-road,” “progressivism,” and “bipartisanship.”) Clever intriguers are reshaping both parties in the image of Babbitt, gone Social-Democrat. When and where this political issue arises, we are, without reservations, on the side of the traditional two-party system that fights its feuds in public and honestly; and we shall advocate the restoration of the two-party system at all costs.

The competitive price system is indispensable to liberty and material progress. It is threatened not only by the growth of Big Brother government, but by the pressure of monopolies(including union monopolies. What is more, some labor unions have clearly identified themselves with doctrinaire socialist objectives. The characteristic problems of harassed business have gone unreported for years, with the result that the public has been taught to assume(almost instinctively) that conflicts between labor and management are generally traceable to greed and int***sigence on the part of management. Sometimes they are; often they are not. National Review will explore and oppose the inroads upon the market economy caused by monopolies in general, and politically oriented unionism in particular; and it will tell the violated businessman’s side of the story.

No superstition has more effectively bewitched America’s Liberal elite than the fashionable concepts of world government, the United Nations, internationalism, international atomic pools, etc. Perhaps the most important and readily demonstrable lesson of history is that freedom goes hand in hand with a state of political decentralization, that remote government is irresponsible government. It would make greater sense to grant independence to each of our 50 states than to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a world organization.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/223549/our-mission-statement-william-f-buckley-jr

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

A better beginning might be to reset our moral compass and that won't be easy.

Carol Kelly

She may just be a mental patient with an IPad. Be nice, she needs help.

KiraSeer2016

You know I have nothing but contempt for you and others of your ilk. If you persist in damning me, in finding something wrong with me, you are missing the whole point.

pafret Loc: Northeast

We are well aware of the contempt you have for everyone else. We simply think your overwheening p***e is ridiculous as is your incessant posturing. In short, we have assessed you and found you lacking in humanity, you could be convicted of hating the human race.

E

There is no doubt that that is a very real issue and in need of attention, as to what, when and where.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

I dont give a s**t if you have a contempt for me, i just want to know what is your fricking point??

pafret Loc: Northeast

You need to do some homework before you can begin to comprehend the essential points of this argument,, twenty or or thirty years worth at least in your case. As it is you are bringing a penknife to a gunfight.