The masses have been calling for a conservative voice to balance out the rest of these bleeding heart liberals. The real Sidecar is here to tell you that I will probably not be that voice. But, I will post from time-to-time when the feeling moves me (and besides, I know the password so you can’t get rid of me).
I am, in fact, a reasonable conservative. I don’t own guns, I am not religious, I believe in choice, I think anyone should be allowed to get married. I do, however, fundamentally believe in fiscal conservatism and strong foreign policy. These being the most important issues, I was compelled to support McCain (despite the absolutely indefensible selection of one Sarah Palin. I can’t figure out if she has beauty queen appeal or auto accident appeal. I know that I can’t look away, but I’m not sure why).
I have remained quiet throughout this election because, I must admit, I too sipped the Obama Kool-Aid. It was hard not to. Here is a candidate who looks to have what it takes, he is cool, confident, smart, well-spoken, level-headed, etc. While he may lack the experience, I (along with many moderate “Republicans”) believe he has the ability to lead. And, ability is really all that matters. So, I am willing to give him a chance. I firmly believe, however, that his economic policies are wrong and that he won’t be strong enough in dealing with foreign powers.
Well, your first tests already have been passed out Mr. President (elect). On the day of the election, Russia announced that it will deploy short-range missiles in Kaliningrad (the little part of Russia directly west of Lithuania and east of Poland) that may be fitted with nuclear warheads. And, Iran announced that it would "forcefully" respond to any violation of Iranian airspace (despite the fact that the U.S. has not violated their airspace). Two countries have issued direct challenges Mr. President. They demand strong responses. What do you do? What do you do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Who knew being religious or owning a gun made you unreasonable?
Your 'conservative voice' is as big of a hypocritical judgmental and prejudiced douchebag as the more regular contributors to this blog.
Our founding fathers were also apparently unreasonable in that they too owned guns and were religious. It is so uncool to be an old white man who believes in religion or owns a gun. Save that old white men (less arguably Kennedy and Clinton) have been leading the greatest country in history for 200 plus years with pretty good results. Go live in France.
This blog and its pretentious authors all stink. Viva President Dinkins.
Thanks for stopping by Anonymous. I was going to write you a big response, but a) decided you weren't worth the time and then b) did so anyway, but my computer ate it.
So I'll shorten it by saying that you clearly did not understand Sidecar's tongue-in-cheek point, but then again it doesn't seem like you really get the blog very well anyhow, so that isn't surprising.
Please invite all your friends to stop by and trash us. It will up our numbers.
Still clinging to your guns and religion? hahahaha.
Actually you go live in France. In the words of the incompetent you voted for twice, "[we] have political capital now . . . and we intend to spend it."
Listen, I feel like I should clarify my remarks because a simple "you're a dick, no YOU'RE a dick" advances nothing in a discourse.
Anonymous, first of all I commend you on your choice of identity. Nothing like posting comments without any possibility of recourse.
Sidecar was making a point. The point is that when you say "conservative" in this country, a large swath of the population assumes "gun nut" or "Jesus nut" or "chestnut" or some other simple little box in which to put someone and thus dismiss them. Conservatives have the same boxes for liberals.
There is nothing wrong with owning a gun (shut up, WAP, I did not bring up the guns). I own two and also manage to be a raging liberal. Does that blow your mind, Anonymous? If it does, you've put me in the same boxes Sidecar was trying to make a point that he cannot be fit into. He's a conservative but not a fringe dweller, and he does not want to be dismissed as a shrieking, hysterical one-word explanation.
That's why we want him. He's right of center and a thinking man. He does not toe the line - he considers the issues and often comes out to the right of where many of us do on this blog. That's why we want him here. If he simply said "because God is great. Jesus saves" or "you can pry the guns from my cold dead hand" then he advances the discussion not at all.
As for your Founding Fathers reference, study up. I would wager you know little about them but love to invoke them - just like many Americans do without a scintilla of knowledge about where they stood on things. A great many of them did not believe in organized religion, including Thomas Jefferson - author of our consitution and the third president - who rewrote the Bible, minus any references to God or Jesus. It's called the Jefferson Bible and still on sale today. Look it up. Have a read. Learn something.
Oh - one more thing... I'd bet a good many of the Founding Fathers would die of a coronary if they were still alive today. Many of them would not have looked too keenly upon a black man being elected president. But you're right - if religion and guns were good enough for them, whatever was good enough for them should be good enough for us.
I invite your educated and insightful reply.
Mr. Bateman,
It's a point well made, but for that fact that it is you who could use a a little "studying up," as it were. The principal author of the Constitution was not Jefferson, as you stated, but James Madison. Each state sent a delegate to the Constitutional convention, but Madison was the primary author. It then fell to Madison, Hamilton and Jay to draft the Federalist Papers, which were nothing more than articles aimed at explaining what the hell the Constitution was, what it said and why to vote for its ratification.
Jefferson was in Paris as our ambassador to France during the Constitutional convention, and played no role in its drafting.
Classifying people as 'gun nuts' or invalid because they disagree with you on abortion is the sort of short sighted hate that you 'tolerant' jerks preach and make your stock and trade. You admit in the first breath of your 'reasonable' response that because your 'conservative' agrees with you on the most hysteria-inducing, overhyped issues ('choice,' guns, and the evils of christianity [religious jews, muslims, and hindus are cool and alterna like Richard Gere, but we can all agree Christians are evil) you generally use to dismiss people as being valueless and stupid, he can roll with your posse.
Nobody's going to egg Barry's presidential motorcade, as your ilk egged W's during his second inauguration. Nobody hung your candidate from a noose, but let me tell you that if they did Olbermann would have been shitting all over his tampon about the racism. If it had been Hillary, Steinem would have been bleeding into her fem-condom over the misogyny.
If they voted to name a sewage plant in Alabama after Barack Obama the shrieks of outrage would echo through the nation from you Garofalo-Olbermann types. The fact that your 'conservative' has to come out and say 'it's ok beret-wearing MSNBC lovers, I hate guns and religion too!' in order to prove he's 'not retarded' is nauseating. What happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism.
Anonymity is required because as you rightly pointed out, you dismissive judgmental haughty star-bellied sneeches can't WAIT to categorize and demonize your opponents. Your cheeseball pseudonym is far more identifiable than 'anonymous.'
Nobody's going to pull the B, H, and O letters off the keyboards in the white house. That sort of short sighted, spiteful petty hate is reserved for your ilk.
http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/582344.html:
And last week, an effigy of President-Elect Barack Obama hung by a noose from a tree on UK's campus.
"Something that was 'isolated' decided to be 'isolated' again," Watkins said.
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_10856986:
REDONDO BEACH — A lynched effigy of Democratic candidate Barack Obama came down here after police officers and a representative from John McCain's local campaign office paid a visit to the resident and convinced her to take it down, according to authorities.
Emotions stirred in a Redondo Beach neighborhood Wednesday when the resident hung an effigy of Sen. Barack Obama from her balcony with a meat cleaver slashed through his throat as a Halloween display.
Dammit! Thanks for catching my slip, JK. Obviously you know I meant Declaration of Independence and had no desire to rouse the old Federalist Papers from their sound slumber. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to hug some trees and oppress some Republicans with my ouchie words.
Ha - I just reread your second post, Anonymous. That was pretty amusing stuff. You're absolutely right that if any of the things that were done to (or in protest of) George W. Bush around the time of his re-election were now done to Obama that liberals would be up in arms. You are absolutely 100% correct.
See, now here's the thing...
THE REASON THOSE THINGS WERE DONE WAS BECAUSE BUSH HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN FOUR YEARS IN WHICH TO PLAY HAVOC WITH OUR COUNTRY. Were any of those things done when he was FIRST elected (or, shall I say, when the Supreme Court decided to stop the re-count)? No. Because though some of us may not have voted for him, we didn't know what kind of leader he would be yet. Maybe he'd turn out to be fine. At best, somewhat mediocre or even a bit on the crappy side.
We did not know then as we did in 2004 what his administration would do to America. Here is one to grow on: when you hate a SITTING president for the things he has ALREADY DONE, that's different than hating a PRESIDENT ELECT who has yet done NOTHING since he hasn't even taken the oath of office yet.
Any more brain teasers for us, Anonymous? Shall I, for my next trick, explain the difference between air and water?
"What happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism."
Bush, Cheyney, and their overly loyal gang of ignorants railed against, beat down, and ignored that premise for almost 8 years. Republicans as a whole allowed it and their silence and 2004 votes condoned it.
Funny that this isn't the first time I've seen one seek asylum under it today.
Post a Comment