"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[Boss]

Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.
-Samuel Butler

Wow Eddy... I knew you were stupid, I just didn't realize how much of a left-wing tool you were.

Coming from you, being a "stupid" truth-teller is a compliment.
Thank you.

You are stupid, you are not a truth-teller.

 

[edthecynic]

Reagan won because he articulated a conservative philosophy

Which was lie about what you really were going to do because if you told the truth you would never get elected.

If you are not too young to remember, St Ronnie THE Liar attacked Carter during the campaign over the National Debt and after he was elected gave a warning to a joint session of Congress that the debt was approaching 1 trillion dollars. He said "A trillion dollars, would be a stack of $1,000 bills 67 miles high." Now as we all know by now, he was lying about his concern about the GOP National Debt, just to get elected, which he tripled like a good little CON$ervative. If he had told America the truth, that Carter's raising the debt $300,000,000 in 4 years was bad, but he was going to raise the GOP National Debt by 6 times as much, the CON$ervative would have never been elected.

CON$ always say one thing and do the opposite.

 

[edthecynic]

Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.
-Samuel Butler

Wow Eddy... I knew you were stupid, I just didn't realize how much of a left-wing tool you were.

Coming from you, being a "stupid" truth-teller is a compliment.
Thank you.

You are stupid, you are not a truth-teller.

I have the word of a liar on that.
Thank you again.

 

[Liminal]

It must be very liberating for you to have a philosophy that allows you the latitude to define everyone else as being ideologically motivated. But I'm still not seeing how your philosophy is any different from ideology, it behaves the same way, displays many of the same attributes.

Well I just explained it to you as best as it can be explained. I even gave you and example of how two Conservatives can have completely different views on ideological issues. Don't know how much clearer it can be made, to be honest. If you don't want to see it or you are committed to not comprehending it, I can't help that.

Now, I never did claim that everyone else is ideologically motivated. That's nowhere in my comments. Conservatism isn't ideologically motivated because it doesn't adhere to an ideology. It is a philosophy. When we hear the term "far right" it simply means a conservative. When we hear "moderate" it means someone who isn't a conservative.

Moderate, Conservative, Liberal....does everyone have to be defined into these categories? Suppose your views are conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and undecided or unconcerned about some other issues. How does your philosophy define those people?

You are still thinking in terms of all three being the same thing... ideology! They are NOT the same thing. You can be a Conservative and still have very liberal social viewpoints rooted in Conservative philosophy. In fact, most pragmatic conservatives are very much "moderate" in their social views with more of a libertarian lean than anything.

Liberal social viewpoints rooted in conservative philosophy. Do you have any examples?

Read the thread, I already gave an example earlier of the libertarian vs. social conservative... both are conservatives, both have an argument for what they believe which rooted in conservative philosophy. And it's because conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology.

Still seems vague and ill defined, and sounds a little like ideology.

 

[thanatos144]

Cruz and Paul are the cream of the crop! Since I live in the North Korea of the Midwest, I get the privilege to vote for who I want to vote for. If Cruz or Paul are not the candidate I am doing a write in!

Paul is VERY similar to Reagan, and the leftists are treating him the same.

USMB leftists like to float the fiction that the dims were supportive of Reagan - in fact they treated him the way they treat Sarah Palin. I give BlindFool shit for being a Communist, but at least he's honest about his seething hatred of Reagan.

The American left was on the brink of realizing all of their dreams in 1979. The USSR had established an satellite nation in the North American Continent. Soviet and Cuban troops marching through Honduras, Guatemala, then Mexico, to sit on our unprotected Southern Border was something 5th column boys like Jim Wright and BlindFool were certain would happen by 85. And it would have, except Reagan. The hatred of the left was beyond anything, Reagan destroyed not only the plan to bring Communism home, but in defeating the Soviets in Nicaragua, he caused the whole house of cards to fall. Reagan ruined everything for them.

Paul is nothing like Reagan. Reagan wasn't a isolationist or blamed America for the world's evils.

 

[AntiParty]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

I got to the second sentence when you said, "These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US". Sadly you have no clue how many idiots signed the Grover Norquist PLEDGE. Not even close. "I won't sign any new taxation" isn't so easy when common sense comes into play.
Members of Congress Who Have Signed Anti-Tax Pledge

Tax is bad M'Kay. But Robin Hood stole from the Rich and gave to the poor. What are we seeing today?

Big Corp and CEO's absorbing nearly all the profits

 

[AntiParty]

Cruz and Paul are the cream of the crop! Since I live in the North Korea of the Midwest, I get the privilege to vote for who I want to vote for. If Cruz or Paul are not the candidate I am doing a write in!

Paul is VERY similar to Reagan, and the leftists are treating him the same.

USMB leftists like to float the fiction that the dims were supportive of Reagan - in fact they treated him the way they treat Sarah Palin. I give BlindFool shit for being a Communist, but at least he's honest about his seething hatred of Reagan.

The American left was on the brink of realizing all of their dreams in 1979. The USSR had established an satellite nation in the North American Continent. Soviet and Cuban troops marching through Honduras, Guatemala, then Mexico, to sit on our unprotected Southern Border was something 5th column boys like Jim Wright and BlindFool were certain would happen by 85. And it would have, except Reagan. The hatred of the left was beyond anything, Reagan destroyed not only the plan to bring Communism home, but in defeating the Soviets in Nicaragua, he caused the whole house of cards to fall. Reagan ruined everything for them.

Paul is nothing like Reagan. Reagan wasn't a isolationist or blamed America for the world's evils.

Reagan was simply a puppet after his medical conditions played out. Your response dares the question before or after.

The people that made choices for Reagan after he was "medically dis-inclined" are very similar to the people who support RAND Paul, (not Ron).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

crazy thread

Yes, that often happens when someone makes a valid point which conflicts with a liberal meme...

...

even crazier

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Boss

Wow Eddy... I knew you were stupid...

... and being the King of Stupid @ USMB you'd know for sure

 

[Boss]

Still seems vague and ill defined, and sounds a little like ideology.

Well then you're just a fucking moron because ideology is certainly not vague or ill defined.

So we can pretty much dismiss anything else you have to say because you're an idiot.

 

[Boss]

Reagan won because he articulated a conservative philosophy

Which was lie about what you really were going to do because if you told the truth you would never get elected.

If you are not too young to remember, St Ronnie THE Liar attacked Carter during the campaign over the National Debt and after he was elected gave a warning to a joint session of Congress that the debt was approaching 1 trillion dollars. He said "A trillion dollars, would be a stack of $1,000 bills 67 miles high." Now as we all know by now, he was lying about his concern about the GOP National Debt, just to get elected, which he tripled like a good little CON$ervative. If he had told America the truth, that Carter's raising the debt $300,000,000 in 4 years was bad, but he was going to raise the GOP National Debt by 6 times as much, the CON$ervative would have never been elected.

CON$ always say one thing and do the opposite.

Well the point of this thread wasn't to hear what kind of candidate liberals think the GOP should run. You should let John McCain or Mitch McConnell know who you prefer but most of us Conservatives don't really care what you think. The thread isn't here for you to hijack and talk about Ronald Reagan... and I worked on both Reagan campaigns... I'm 55 years old. And this is not a debate about government spending, which you favor more of than any party ever in the history of America.

The people I am looking for are the GOP Republican elite who are clamoring for Jeb Bush or Chris Christie and claiming we have to "run to the middle" to win the election. Since you're really not part of the GOP elite, your opinion really doesn't mean much in this thread. Not that it ever means much but it really doesn't in this thread. So save us all the trouble of having to scroll past your blather and just move along.

 

[candycorn]

The far rights argument is starting to sound a little to much like the ISIS to feel comfortable with them.

And after 5 pages of no one presenting a single damn thing to indicate what "far right" means, we still have liberal chuckleheads spewing the empty rhetoric.

Please do explain how the so-called "far right" (aka: Conservatives) are remotely similar to ISIS in ANY way?

I'm betting you can't come up with anything but more mindless rhetoric that isn't supported with facts.

Does anyone know what in the hell he is talking about?

Outside of the monumentally stupid idea that if you run someone who is politically on the far right end of the spectrum, he will win everyone to his left and carry the nomination...can anyone else detect a point in his incessant drivel? Oh, and by the way, we all have noticed that he won't come out and say whom he is backing to be that person....

In short, the OP is a moron and a coward.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The far rights argument is starting to sound a little to much like the ISIS to feel comfortable with them.

And after 5 pages of no one presenting a single damn thing to indicate what "far right" means, we still have liberal chuckleheads spewing the empty rhetoric.

Please do explain how the so-called "far right" (aka: Conservatives) are remotely similar to ISIS in ANY way?

I'm betting you can't come up with anything but more mindless rhetoric that isn't supported with facts.

Does anyone know what in the hell he is talking about?

Outside of the monumentally stupid idea that if you run someone who is politically on the far right end of the spectrum, he will win everyone to his left and carry the nomination...can anyone else detect a point in his incessant drivel? Oh, and by the way, we all have noticed that he won't come out and say whom he is backing to be that person....

In short, the OP is a moron and a coward.

Yeah... he's talking about the failure of anyone who claims that there exists a 'far-right' to actually explain what they mean to convey, through the use of the term.

In truth, thus reality... there is no such thing as a 'far-right'. There is only Right ... and Wrong.

 

[hangover]

The far rights argument is starting to sound a little to much like the ISIS to feel comfortable with them.

And after 5 pages of no one presenting a single damn thing to indicate what "far right" means, we still have liberal chuckleheads spewing the empty rhetoric.

Please do explain how the so-called "far right" (aka: Conservatives) are remotely similar to ISIS in ANY way?

I'm betting you can't come up with anything but more mindless rhetoric that isn't supported with facts.

Does anyone know what in the hell he is talking about?

Outside of the monumentally stupid idea that if you run someone who is politically on the far right end of the spectrum, he will win everyone to his left and carry the nomination...can anyone else detect a point in his incessant drivel? Oh, and by the way, we all have noticed that he won't come out and say whom he is backing to be that person....

In short, the OP is a moron and a coward.

Yeah... he's talking about the failure of anyone who claims that there exists a 'far-right' to actually explain what they mean to convey, through the use of the term.

In truth, thus reality... there is no such thing as a 'far-right'. There is only Right ... and Wrong.

So Mussolini is your hero.

 

[Boss]

The far rights argument is starting to sound a little to much like the ISIS to feel comfortable with them.

And after 5 pages of no one presenting a single damn thing to indicate what "far right" means, we still have liberal chuckleheads spewing the empty rhetoric.

Please do explain how the so-called "far right" (aka: Conservatives) are remotely similar to ISIS in ANY way?

I'm betting you can't come up with anything but more mindless rhetoric that isn't supported with facts.

Does anyone know what in the hell he is talking about?

Outside of the monumentally stupid idea that if you run someone who is politically on the far right end of the spectrum, he will win everyone to his left and carry the nomination...can anyone else detect a point in his incessant drivel? Oh, and by the way, we all have noticed that he won't come out and say whom he is backing to be that person....

In short, the OP is a moron and a coward.

Sorry it was over your head. I am asking you to explain how Conservatives (you call them "far right") are like ISIS, whom Matthew compared them to. If you can't explain that, I will settle for an explanation of what is "far right" about Conservative philosophy. We now have over 200 posts and none of you can answer this. All we keep getting is more lies and distortion. And that's pretty much all we can expect because my point is valid.

I don't have any problem telling you who I am backing and will be glad to do so when I decide. As of now, I like Ted Cruz and Scott Walker. Several others are also on the radar but a lot can change between now and the primaries... Someone might have a woman stoned to death for wanting contraception or saw someone's head off because they are a Jew... being Conservatives are so much like ISIS! //sarcasm

 

[Uncensored2008]

So Mussolini is your hero.

So "far right" is an authoritarian and autocratic system with a centrally planned and managed economy where the state controls the means of production?

Barack Obama is "far right," who knew?

 

[thanatos144]

Cruz and Paul are the cream of the crop! Since I live in the North Korea of the Midwest, I get the privilege to vote for who I want to vote for. If Cruz or Paul are not the candidate I am doing a write in!

Paul is VERY similar to Reagan, and the leftists are treating him the same.

USMB leftists like to float the fiction that the dims were supportive of Reagan - in fact they treated him the way they treat Sarah Palin. I give BlindFool shit for being a Communist, but at least he's honest about his seething hatred of Reagan.

The American left was on the brink of realizing all of their dreams in 1979. The USSR had established an satellite nation in the North American Continent. Soviet and Cuban troops marching through Honduras, Guatemala, then Mexico, to sit on our unprotected Southern Border was something 5th column boys like Jim Wright and BlindFool were certain would happen by 85. And it would have, except Reagan. The hatred of the left was beyond anything, Reagan destroyed not only the plan to bring Communism home, but in defeating the Soviets in Nicaragua, he caused the whole house of cards to fall. Reagan ruined everything for them.

Paul is nothing like Reagan. Reagan wasn't a isolationist or blamed America for the world's evils.

Reagan was simply a puppet after his medical conditions played out. Your response dares the question before or after.

The people that made choices for Reagan after he was "medically dis-inclined" are very similar to the people who support RAND Paul, (not Ron).

And yet still better then any democrat president we have had since.......Funny that.... It shows how full of shit you are.

 

[thanatos144]

The far rights argument is starting to sound a little to much like the ISIS to feel comfortable with them.

And after 5 pages of no one presenting a single damn thing to indicate what "far right" means, we still have liberal chuckleheads spewing the empty rhetoric.

Please do explain how the so-called "far right" (aka: Conservatives) are remotely similar to ISIS in ANY way?

I'm betting you can't come up with anything but more mindless rhetoric that isn't supported with facts.

Does anyone know what in the hell he is talking about?

Outside of the monumentally stupid idea that if you run someone who is politically on the far right end of the spectrum, he will win everyone to his left and carry the nomination...can anyone else detect a point in his incessant drivel? Oh, and by the way, we all have noticed that he won't come out and say whom he is backing to be that person....

In short, the OP is a moron and a coward.

Yeah... he's talking about the failure of anyone who claims that there exists a 'far-right' to actually explain what they mean to convey, through the use of the term.

In truth, thus reality... there is no such thing as a 'far-right'. There is only Right ... and Wrong.

So Mussolini is your hero.

Why would a socialist be his hero????

 

[Boss]

The far rights argument is starting to sound a little to much like the ISIS to feel comfortable with them.

And after 5 pages of no one presenting a single damn thing to indicate what "far right" means, we still have liberal chuckleheads spewing the empty rhetoric.

Please do explain how the so-called "far right" (aka: Conservatives) are remotely similar to ISIS in ANY way?

I'm betting you can't come up with anything but more mindless rhetoric that isn't supported with facts.

Does anyone know what in the hell he is talking about?

Outside of the monumentally stupid idea that if you run someone who is politically on the far right end of the spectrum, he will win everyone to his left and carry the nomination...can anyone else detect a point in his incessant drivel? Oh, and by the way, we all have noticed that he won't come out and say whom he is backing to be that person....

In short, the OP is a moron and a coward.

Yeah... he's talking about the failure of anyone who claims that there exists a 'far-right' to actually explain what they mean to convey, through the use of the term.

In truth, thus reality... there is no such thing as a 'far-right'. There is only Right ... and Wrong.

So Mussolini is your hero.

How about following the conversation, Corky?
We're talking in context of American politics. In that context, there is no "far right" or anything remotely close to Mussolini or what is actually "far right." Your comment showing you understand what Fascist "far right" means, reinforces the stupidity of such an argument.

The "far right" is a very small fringe extremist bunch who represent maybe .02% of the potential voters in this country. Most of them don't vote because most of them are also Anarchists and voting is not their thing. But we've already established that "far right" simply means "conservative" to the left. There is no other delineation or meaning when they use the term.

On the right, our choices are: 1) Be conservative and put up with lying lefties calling us names like "far right" and comparing us to ISIS, Mussolini or Hitler. 2) Be "moderate" and apologize for conservatism while rendering ourselves politically irrelevant. We'll have to see which way the GOP decides to go but I don't think they can make themselves any more politically irrelevant. Strong Conservative philosophy is the ONLY way the GOP regains power politically, and that requires a strong conservative messenger.

 

[candycorn]

The far rights argument is starting to sound a little to much like the ISIS to feel comfortable with them.

And after 5 pages of no one presenting a single damn thing to indicate what "far right" means, we still have liberal chuckleheads spewing the empty rhetoric.

Please do explain how the so-called "far right" (aka: Conservatives) are remotely similar to ISIS in ANY way?

I'm betting you can't come up with anything but more mindless rhetoric that isn't supported with facts.

Does anyone know what in the hell he is talking about?

Outside of the monumentally stupid idea that if you run someone who is politically on the far right end of the spectrum, he will win everyone to his left and carry the nomination...can anyone else detect a point in his incessant drivel? Oh, and by the way, we all have noticed that he won't come out and say whom he is backing to be that person....

In short, the OP is a moron and a coward.

Sorry it was over your head. I am asking you to explain how Conservatives (you call them "far right") are like ISIS, whom Matthew compared them to.

Shouldn't you be asking Matthew?

If you can't explain that, I will settle for an explanation of what is "far right" about Conservative philosophy.

Ideas such as valuing the fetus more than the woman bearing the fetus, thinking the government should be have to bless your marriage, allowing companies and industries to self-police then acting shocked when rivers are polluted and banks demand bail-outs or else...and generally taking zero responsibility for anything that happens in the nation.

We now have over 200 posts and none of you can answer this. All we keep getting is more lies and distortion. And that's pretty much all we can expect because my point is valid.

Yeah, you're the one distorting the subject.

In the OP, the "foundation" was laid out that you may or may not support these basic tenants of the philosophy and still should be able to call yourself a conservative....

You used the "intent of the founders"...you remember? So the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment and ratified it. You're stating that you can be conservative and disagree with the right to bear arms? I think you're probably a few enchiladas short of a combination plate if that is the case; and it must be since you wrote just that.

I don't have any problem telling you who I am backing and will be glad to do so when I decide. As of now, I like Ted Cruz and Scott Walker. Several others are also on the radar but a lot can change between now and the primaries... Someone might have a woman stoned to death for wanting contraception or saw someone's head off because they are a Jew... being Conservatives are so much like ISIS! //sarcasm

Well, neither one will be in the race next April...beat the rush and start shopping for a new candidate.