Chris Christie out - GOOD

Patrick · Oct 5, 2011

The fat guy has apparently REALLY excluded hinself from the GOP nomination. Christie is apparently a RINO - RINOish/lib positions on gun confiscation laws, abortion, the illegal alien invasion. Plus he's a warmist. Jokes aside about his over 300 pounds, americans shouldn't elect someone who is in such obvious health jeopardy.

When I look at the GOP candidates, I get depressed. RINOs like romney. People that seem part of the past like Gingrich. Cain certainly knows business and his heart is in the right place, but he lacks government experience. Perry just seems minimal, with his gaffes and support for the illegal alien invasion.

I've seen only two decent candidates - pawlenty and santorum. Santorum is stigmatized by having lost a senate race for re-election. Pawlenty is a smart, intelligent, experienced governor, but he lacks that charisma that motivates so many idiots-with-a-vote.

There are more quality people who could run, but I think they just don't want to deal with the terrible mess left by obama.

DodgeFB · Oct 5, 2011

Patrick said:
There are more quality people who could run, but I think they just don't want to deal with the terrible mess left by obama.

But they could blame it all on O'bama for years. That's what the O'bama crowd does with Bush.

myp · Oct 5, 2011

Interesting you left out arguably the most conservative guy in the field and one who polls better than some of the candidates you talked about: Ron Paul. Learning from the MSM?

Patrick · Oct 5, 2011

myp said:
Interesting you left out arguably the most conservative guy in the field and one who polls better than some of the candidates you talked about: Ron Paul. Learning from the MSM?

Paul is not a conservative - he is a libertarian.

abbyafton · Oct 6, 2011

Ron Paul has a better chance to win

myp · Oct 6, 2011

Patrick said:
Paul is not a conservative - he is a libertarian.

Political monikers are subjective and that is why they often don't work in intellectual discussions where a precise meaning is necessary. If conservatives believe in small government and personal freedoms (and I mean actually believe- not say they believe and then sell out), then most of them should be libertarians.

Patrick · Oct 6, 2011

myp said:
Political monikers are subjective and that is why they often don't work in intellectual discussions where a precise meaning is necessary. If conservatives believe in small government and personal freedoms (and I mean actually believe- not say they believe and then sell out), then most of them should be libertarians.

No - there is a distinction, even if it isn't razor sharp. Many people who accuse conservatives of selling out usually confuse conservatives with republicans, and use the two terms interchangeably, even though during most of its 20th-21st century history the GOP has been controlled by RINOs. Then the equivocation is used to smear conservatives for what RINOs have done.

myp · Oct 6, 2011

Patrick said:
No - there is a distinction, even if it isn't razor sharp. Many people who accuse conservatives of selling out usually confuse conservatives with republicans, and use the two terms interchangeably, even though during most of its 20th-21st century history the GOP has been controlled by RINOs. Then the equivocation is used to smear conservatives for what RINOs have done.

There is a distinction, but both terms are subjective. The very fact that Ron Paul calls himself a conservative as does Mitt Romney as does John McCain as did Ronald Reagan proves it.

Patrick · Oct 6, 2011

myp said:
There is a distinction, but both terms are subjective. The very fact that Ron Paul calls himself a conservative as does Mitt Romney as does John McCain as did Ronald Reagan proves it.

You're just offering the unschooled rhetoric of politicians. Although there isn't as I say a razor sharp dividing line, your claim is false. Read the papers at Heritage versus Cato, or better yet the intellectual leaders of the two movements.

myp · Oct 6, 2011

Patrick said:
You're just offering the unschooled rhetoric of politicians. Although there isn't as I say a razor sharp dividing line, your claim is false. Read the papers at Heritage versus Cato, or better yet the intellectual leaders of the two movements.

Words can be interpreted different ways. There is no set meaning, especially when you apply it to the issues. Some will tell you the neocon "defense on the offense" world conquering is conservative, others will tell you anti-war is conservative. Either way, say there were a definite definition as applied to the issues (which there isn't), if no one understands that definition then it effectively becomes useless. It is much easier to just focus on the issues instead of playing the "i'm conservative, he's conservative, he's liberal, i'm liberal" game.

Patrick · Oct 6, 2011

myp said:
Words can be interpreted different ways. There is no set meaning, especially when you apply it to the issues. Some will tell you the neocon "defense on the offense" world conquering is conservative, others will tell you anti-war is conservative. Either way, say there were a definite definition as applied to the issues (which there isn't), if no one understands that definition then it effectively becomes useless. It is much easier to just focus on the issues instead of playing the "i'm conservative, he's conservative, he's liberal, i'm liberal" game.

Now you're getting into the fine points. In recent years, the focus on the most relevent conflict within the republican party, viz, the perrenial RINOs, and conservatives broadly construed, although there have been a number of subtypes of conservatives: christian right, small government, internationalist, states rights, etc. Because many people use words imprecisely or erroneously, that doesn't ipso facto mean the concepts are ill-defined. Analogy: there are contexts where I can correctly use the word "car" (conservative), and there are contexts where I must use a finer sub-category "toyota" (internationalist conservative). If I don't use the right level, and many people don't use the right level, then all kinds of inadvertent or deliberate confusion will result, but it doesn't follow from that that the concepts are ill-defined.

myp · Oct 6, 2011

Patrick said:
Now you're getting into the fine points. In recent years, the focus on the most relevent conflict within the republican party, viz, the perrenial RINOs, and conservatives broadly construed, although there have been a number of subtypes of conservatives: christian right, small government, internationalist, states rights, etc. Because many people use words imprecisely or erroneously, that doesn't ipso facto mean the concepts are ill-defined. Analogy: there are contexts where I can correctly use the word "car" (conservative), and there are contexts where I must use a finer sub-category "toyota" (internationalist conservative). If I don't use the right level, and many people don't use the right level, then all kinds of inadvertent or deliberate confusion will result, but it doesn't follow from that that the concepts are ill-defined.

The subtypes definitely help clarify matters, but they are still vague. And I agree with you that misuse of words is not an acceptable argument against them, but the point I am making is that there is no definite definition for conservative, etc.

For example, can you tell me what the conservative position is on intellectual property rights (whether they should be handed out as monopolies by government)? There is no set position for every issue and some conservatives will say IP law as is is needed to protect property rights while other conservatives will say government should not be in the business of guaranteeing monopolies under patents since it is a market issue (let the market compete).

Patrick · Oct 6, 2011

myp said:
The subtypes definitely help clarify matters, but they are still vague. And I agree with you that misuse of words is not an acceptable argument against them, but the point I am making is that there is no definite definition for conservative, etc.

For example, can you tell me what the conservative position is on intellectual property rights (whether they should be handed out as monopolies by government)? There is no set position for every issue and some conservatives will say IP law as is is needed to protect property rights while other conservatives will say government should not be in the business of guaranteeing monopolies under patents since it is a market issue (let the market compete).

The government should of course guarantee patents because it's protecting private property - a legitimate task of government. That's no different (in essence) than being able to call the police because someone is trying to steal your car from your driveway.

myp · Oct 6, 2011

Patrick said:
The government should of course guarantee patents because it's protecting private property - a legitimate task of government. That's no different (in essence) than being able to call the police because someone is trying to steal your car from your driveway.

Well no it's not because it is arguable whether ideas and intangible things can be property. Then there is the whole issue of how some ideas can be patented and others can't. What is and is not property also differs by country.

That is all really off topic though- my point is that there are some issues that aren't clearly defined into any moniker. There is no such thing as an ideal conservative or liberal.

Patrick · Oct 6, 2011

myp said:
Well no it's not because it is arguable whether ideas and intangible things can be property.

Someone CREATED something and it's not his property???

Then there is the whole issue of how some ideas can be patented and others can't. What is and is not property also differs by country.

The arbitrary actions of this or that government is neither here nor there.

That is all really off topic though-

You are the one who brought it up.

my point is that there are some issues that aren't clearly defined into any moniker. There is no such thing as an ideal conservative or liberal.

Very few. The majority of issues fall on one side or the other. I can predict with a high degree of accuracy how the two sides will vote on almost any bill.

David · Oct 7, 2011

myp said:
Political monikers are subjective and that is why they often don't work in intellectual discussions where a precise meaning is necessary. If conservatives believe in small government and personal freedoms (and I mean actually believe- not say they believe and then sell out), then most of them should be libertarians.

Libertarians are technically liberals, not conservatives.

Patrick · Oct 7, 2011

myp said:
There is a distinction, but both terms are subjective. The very fact that Ron Paul calls himself a conservative as does Mitt Romney as does John McCain as did Ronald Reagan proves it.

If I called myself the Crown Prince of Lichtenstein, would that mean the phrase "Crown Prince of Lichtenstein" is subjective?

David · Oct 7, 2011

Patrick said:
If I called myself the Crown Prince of Lichtenstein, would that mean the phrase "Crown Prince of Lichtenstein" is subjective?

To be fair he wouldn't get a single vote if he ran as a liberal. Repub rhetoric is small gov't and personal freedom and while it the most obvious lie in modern American politics, it allows for a libertarian to run on their platform without being stuck in a 3rd party where they'd never win an election. The fact that the Repubs are also staunchly pro-capitalism is an extra plus for right-libertarians. The only down side for a libertarian is they need to talk like a conservative to keep the Repub base loyal to them. If the Libertarian Party ever gains any real strength, watch the right-libertarians drop the Republican Party like a hot potato. God help the establishment if left- and right-libertarians ever joined forces.

Patrick · Oct 7, 2011

David said:
To be fair he wouldn't get a single vote if he ran as a liberal. Repub rhetoric is small gov't and personal freedom and while it the most obvious lie in modern American politics, it allows for a libertarian to run on their platform without being stuck in a 3rd party where they'd never win an election. The fact that the Repubs are also staunchly pro-capitalism is an extra plus for right-libertarians. The only down side for a libertarian is they need to talk like a conservative to keep the Repub base loyal to them. If the Libertarian Party ever gains any real strength, watch the right-libertarians drop the Republican Party like a hot potato. God help the establishment if left- and right-libertarians ever joined forces.

The most incoherent babble I've ever read in ten years of reading political forums on the net.

David · Oct 8, 2011

Patrick said:
The most incoherent babble I've ever read in ten years of reading political forums on the net.

Must be a long 10 years if you don't know how to read.

Chris Christie out - GOOD

Similar threads