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

[Boss]

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.

Wow... I am actually opposed to all those ideas and I am about as Conservative as they come.

 

[Liminal]

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.

No, you're wrong and stupid. Ideology, particularly yours, relies almost entirely on vague, ill defined, generic nonsense, lots of hackneyed phrases based on stereotypical media characterizations. In other words: You're just about as full of shit as you can possibly be,

 

[Liminal]

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.

Republicans have obviously been the unfortunate victims of a campaign to discredit them and undermine their "philosophy".

 

[candycorn]

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.

Wow... I am actually opposed to all those ideas and I am about as Conservative as they come.

So,you're pro-choice, pro-regulation, and pro marriage equality for same sex couples?

 

[edthecynic]

what is "far right" about Conservative philosophy

CON$ervatism is a lie. CON$ pretend to be anti debt, but Reagan after running against running up the national debt, tripled the GOP National debt once elected. Bush Jr, who ran as a CON$ervative and was called a fusion of Reagan and Churchill after elected, is considered "Liberal" by todays CON$ because he only doubled the GOP National Debt. If only he had tripled the GOP National Debt he would still be considered Reaganesque!

'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.'
- Ronald Reagan

 

[Boss]

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.

There are no "tenants" of a philosophy, that is what makes it different than an ideology. Yes, I can make a legitimate conservative philosophy argument for gun control. I can't nullify the 2nd Amendment like the lefties want to do... that will take ratification of a new Constitutional Amendment and I don't think you have the votes for that. But as for common sense restrictions of certain weapons or the availability of certain weapons to certain people, a conservative philosophy argument can be made. The same applies to any number of issues which is precisely why Conservatives often split their vote between several candidates.

 

[Boss]

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.

Wow... I am actually opposed to all those ideas and I am about as Conservative as they come.

So,you're pro-choice, pro-regulation, and pro marriage equality for same sex couples?

No, I didn't say that.

1) I don't believe a fetus is ever more important than the life of the woman carrying it.
2) I don't think the government should bless your marriage, gay or straight.
3) I believe free market capitalists require some measure of limited regulation.
4) I don't support bail outs for banks or any other capitalist venture.
5) I am a strong believer in personal responsibility.

So there you have it... every item you listed, I am opposed to. Yet... Conservative as the day is long!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagan's economy went into a 16 month recession 6 months after he was elected. The business cycle rescued him. He slept through it.

ROFLMNAO! The recession WAS THE BUSINESS CYCLE.

In truth Reagan inherited an economy in much worse shape that what the brown clown inherited.

The worst of the Reagan years would be economic nirvana compared to the best 4 quarters cobbled together from the 24 obamas quarters to which we've been long subjected.

Unemployment hit 10.8 under Reagan in 1982.

The worst unemployment rate under Obama has been 10.0%.

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up! (Yes Reader, it actually believes that.)

I'll bet you a thousand bucks I'm right.

Right about what? And please... be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

Right that you were wrong.

 

[Skylar]

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.

There are no "tenants" of a philosophy, that is what makes it different than an ideology. Yes, I can make a legitimate conservative philosophy argument for gun control. I can't nullify the 2nd Amendment like the lefties want to do... that will take ratification of a new Constitutional Amendment and I don't think you have the votes for that. But as for common sense restrictions of certain weapons or the availability of certain weapons to certain people, a conservative philosophy argument can be made. The same applies to any number of issues which is precisely why Conservatives often split their vote between several candidates.

There is a distinction, though its subtle. Ideology is based on ideals, while philosphy is based on principles. Ideals are states of perfection. Principles, fundamental truths. Speaking broadly of each.

Ideology and philosophy aren't mutually exclusive. But that venn diagram doesn't overlap entirely.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Wow... I am actually opposed to all those ideas and I am about as Conservative as they come.

So,you're pro-choice, pro-regulation, and pro marriage equality for same sex couples?

No, I didn't say that.

1) I don't believe a fetus is ever more important than the life of the woman carrying it.
2) I don't think the government should bless your marriage, gay or straight.
3) I believe free market capitalists require some measure of limited regulation.
4) I don't support bail outs for banks or any other capitalist venture.
5) I am a strong believer in personal responsibility.

So there you have it... every item you listed, I am opposed to. Yet... Conservative as the day is long!

So basically, Ted Cruz--the guy you support--is at odds with you on #1, #2, and #3.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Even conservatives don't want a far right candidate. As they don't nominate them. And conservatives are the most sympathetic audience you're going to find for far right ideology. Moderates, liberals and independents are far less interested.

The idea that a liberal or a moderate is going to want a far right candidate when even conservatives didn't is ludicrous.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow... I am actually opposed to all those ideas and I am about as Conservative as they come.

Candy has a talking points list from the Soros hate sites on "how to defeat a conservative." The list details what Conservatives must believe (setting the straw man) and then attacks the assigned beliefs.

Leftists lack the intellect to actually debate the words of others, they rely entirely on hate lists from the Soros sites.

 

[Liminal]

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.

Even conservatives don't want a far right candidate. As they don't nominate them. And conservatives are the most sympathetic audience you're going to find for far right ideology. Moderates, liberals and independents are far less interested.

The idea that a liberal or a moderate is going to want a far right candidate when even conservatives didn't is ludicrous.

Ted Cruz has about as much chance of being President as the author of the OP.

 

[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.

No, you're wrong and stupid. Ideology, particularly yours, relies almost entirely on vague, ill defined, generic nonsense, lots of hackneyed phrases based on stereotypical media characterizations. In other words: You're just about as full of shit as you can possibly be,

Again, you are a stumbling. bumbling contradiction. Go get a dictionary and look up the definition for "ideology" and you will find that it simply cannot be "vague and ill defined." That is the antithesis of ideology!

What I have is a Conservative PHILOSOPHY. While you have that dictionary handy, go look up the definition for "philosophy" and try to educate yourself. I've tried to explain it as simply as I can but you're standing there with your finger in your nose looking dumbfounded.

I literally have no idea what you mean when you claim I have used "hackneyed phrases based on stereotypical media characterizations" because that sounds like what Liberals are doing with the phrase "far right" to me. But I am used to this kind of insanity from lefties when they go off the tracks... they start accusing you of the things they are most guilty of... it's amazing!

 

[Skylar]

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.

Even conservatives don't want a far right candidate. As they don't nominate them. And conservatives are the most sympathetic audience you're going to find for far right ideology. Moderates, liberals and independents are far less interested.

The idea that a liberal or a moderate is going to want a far right candidate when even conservatives didn't is ludicrous.

Ted Cruz has about as much chance of being President as the author of the OP.

Ted is very well funded by billionaires and hedge fund managers. He probably has a slightly better chance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So,you're pro-choice, pro-regulation, and pro marriage equality for same sex couples?

I'm "pro-choice" but you are not.

I support parent choice in deciding what school to send their child to. I support the choice of consumers to decide who they will buy goods from. I support the choice of vendors to decide who they will sell their time and effort to.

You support killing ones offspring.

"Choice" is not defined as "pulling the arms and legs off of an unborn child to cause death." You do not promote "choice," you promote abortion - you're simply too dishonest to state what it is you are promoting.

You think the talking points you got from the hate sites are clever, they are not. They are ham-handed and stupid.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

Wow... I am actually opposed to all those ideas and I am about as Conservative as they come.

So,you're pro-choice, pro-regulation, and pro marriage equality for same sex couples?

No, I didn't say that.

1) I don't believe a fetus is ever more important than the life of the woman carrying it.
2) I don't think the government should bless your marriage, gay or straight.
3) I believe free market capitalists require some measure of limited regulation.
4) I don't support bail outs for banks or any other capitalist venture.
5) I am a strong believer in personal responsibility.

So there you have it... every item you listed, I am opposed to. Yet... Conservative as the day is long!

You forget unlike them progressives you actually believe in those things while they just give it lip service.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

There are no "tenants" of a philosophy, that is what makes it different than an ideology. Yes, I can make a legitimate conservative philosophy argument for gun control. I can't nullify the 2nd Amendment like the lefties want to do... that will take ratification of a new Constitutional Amendment and I don't think you have the votes for that. But as for common sense restrictions of certain weapons or the availability of certain weapons to certain people, a conservative philosophy argument can be made. The same applies to any number of issues which is precisely why Conservatives often split their vote between several candidates.

There is a distinction, though its subtle. Ideology is based on ideals, while philosphy is based on principles. Ideals are states of perfection. Principles, fundamental truths. Speaking broadly of each.

Ideology and philosophy aren't mutually exclusive. But that venn diagram doesn't overlap entirely.

Truth is truth and lies are lies,.....There is no in between. Only liars use stupid talk like that.

 

[Liminal]

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.

No, you're wrong and stupid. Ideology, particularly yours, relies almost entirely on vague, ill defined, generic nonsense, lots of hackneyed phrases based on stereotypical media characterizations. In other words: You're just about as full of shit as you can possibly be,

Again, you are a stumbling. bumbling contradiction. Go get a dictionary and look up the definition for "ideology" and you will find that it simply cannot be "vague and ill defined." That is the antithesis of ideology!

What I have is a Conservative PHILOSOPHY. While you have that dictionary handy, go look up the definition for "philosophy" and try to educate yourself. I've tried to explain it as simply as I can but you're standing there with your finger in your nose looking dumbfounded.

I literally have no idea what you mean when you claim I have used "hackneyed phrases based on stereotypical media characterizations" because that sounds like what Liberals are doing with the phrase "far right" to me. But I am used to this kind of insanity from lefties when they go off the tracks... they start accusing you of the things they are most guilty of... it's amazing!

When you say things like "liberal viewpoints rooted in conservative philosophy", you don't seem to know what you're talking about. So far you've only explained your so called philosophy with some very ambiguous sounding anecdotes. Sounds like a very liberal philosophy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

what is "far right" about Conservative philosophy

CON$ervatism is a lie. CON$ pretend to be anti debt, but Reagan after running against running up the national debt, tripled the GOP National debt once elected. Bush Jr, who ran as a CON$ervative and was called a fusion of Reagan and Churchill after elected, is considered "Liberal" by todays CON$ because he only doubled the GOP National Debt. If only he had tripled the GOP National Debt he would still be considered Reaganesque!

'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.'
- Ronald Reagan

If anyone knows about lies, it's you, edtheliar.

Reagan in 8 years increased the national debt about as much as Obama does in an average month. By the time he oozes out of office next year, Obama will have incurred more debt than all presidents prior to him combined. $18 trillion is the one true accomplishment of your little tin god.