guest301 said:
I agree that "non-racialist" true conservatism is the best way to go.
And I mean that from a purely strategic perspective. I don't have anything against racialism and White Nationalism from a moral or ideological perspective. You and I haven't come to that idea from the same perspective. Heck, I'm a separatist, to be perfectly honest with you. Obviously, that is far more radical than the typical conservative. But I must be honest and admit that it's just not a viable movement right now. We have tens of millions of non-whites in our country, and we do not have the power to separate from them... or make them separate from us.
guest301 said:
WN's will probably never be mainstream and it would take a horrendous civil war and division of the nation to bring about such a thing. I know some of you want that but get real....
Maybe you should get real and realize what kind of problem we're facing, and the future that our multicultural society holds for us white folks. I don't think civil war and "division" (I assume you mean separation of the races) would be such a bad thing. It would be difficult at first, but it would be better for everyone in the long run. Let's face it, the majority of every racial group would prefer to be separate from other races. It's totally natural and morally acceptable. I find the idea of the United States getting split into several "ethnostates" somewhat appealing. I would rather us take back the entire country, but I would settle for separation within this land mass, as long as we had a supremely effective means to defend ourselves, protect our borders, and aggressively enforce laws barring them from living, working, and breeding in our areas.
guest301 said:
Going into politics should not be a career but a public service.
Good point.
guest301 said:
I hold out hope that a Sen George Allen or Sen Rick Santorum would be more of a representative for true conservative values when hopefully they run for president in 2008.
I don't know who Allen is but Santorum seems pretty milquetoast to me. We need radical changes in our immigration, spending, foreign policy, and tax policies. Very tough-minded people would be needed to make those changes.
guest301 said:
I wish Bush was as agressive with the domestic agenda he ran on as he is with foreign policy(whether you agree with that policy or not)...
I'm not so sure. What if he were more aggressive with his guest worker program? That wouldn't be good. Nor would I want to see his Medicare debacle replicated elsewhere. I agree with the tax cuts, but not the expansion of the federal government under his watch. He tried to change Social Security, I'll give him credit for that. His No Child Left Behind program is just more federal interference in our schools. He nominated two conservative Justices (and only after the Harriet Miers blunder did he nominate Alito,) but both seem more or less moderate to me. We'll see what happens with abortion. And whatever happened to the whole Marriage Amendment thing? He's so soft on almost everything that conservatives care about. Except a tax cut. Whoop dee doo.
And I don't want to get in an argument about the war in Iraq, but come on. What a disaster. Altogether this war is going to cost us trillions of dollars, thousands dead and tens of thousands wounded. If Bush being more aggressive on the home front leads to results like that, no thanks. I would prefer him do less, not more.
guest301 said:
I think he is a solid to good president but doesn't have the charisma and idealism I wish he had to live up to the kind of president he could have been.
That is so baffling to me. Wow. This guy has been one of the worst presidents ever. We've lost millions of jobs, our border is as porous as ever, his foreign policy has been a nightmare, abuse of power is rampant, and the federal government is exploding. Not exactly the legacy of a great president, or even a good one, or even a mediocre one. No, this is the "legacy" of one of the worst enemies our country has ever had.
Edited by: JD074