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

[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.

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.

No, there is a very huge difference between an ideology and philosophy.

Ideology is the belief or allegiance to a specific set of ideas or ideals.

Philosophy is the appreciation of knowledge concerning a variety of ideas.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Leftists have no principles, ergo must be ideologues.

 

[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.

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

A well funded extremist nut job. He's funny, I enjoy listening to him speak, it's sort of like watching reruns of Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
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.

The problem is that you have no understanding of "liberal."

You and your fellow Soros drones are leftists - there is nothing even remotely "liberal" about you. You promote the ideas of Karl Marx and Benito Mussolini - not Tom Jefferson and George Mason. This is true even if your handlers have not programmed you to grasp this fact.

 

[Liminal]

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.

No, there is a very huge difference between an ideology and philosophy.

Ideology is the belief or allegiance to a specific set of ideas or ideals.

Philosophy is the appreciation of knowledge concerning a variety of ideas.

And here's the crux of the alleged argument: Republicans make wise decisions based on time honored principles, while Democrats are robotic ideologues waiting for instructions. Does that about sum up your "philosophy"?

 

[Boss]

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.

Conservatism actually used to be called "Classical Liberalism."

What is happening here is, I keep explaining how Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology and you keep demanding that I define it as an ideology or it doesn't make any sense to you. I don't know how to get around your ignorance of the difference between an ideology and philosophy.

And to clarify what I said earlier.. Socially liberal viewpoints can be rooted in conservative philosophy. For instance, Rand Paul's position on legalizing marijuana. That's a socially liberal viewpoint but it is rooted in Paul's conservative philosophy of unobtrusive federal government. So now... there you have a clearly defined example to demonstrate exactly what I said in on uncertain terms. If you still aren't getting it, I can't help you.

 

[Boss]

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

Nahh.. If it comes down to funding by billionaires and hedge fund managers, Hillary will beat his brains out!

 

[Liminal]

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.

Conservatism actually used to be called "Classical Liberalism."

What is happening here is, I keep explaining how Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology and you keep demanding that I define it as an ideology or it doesn't make any sense to you. I don't know how to get around your ignorance of the difference between an ideology and philosophy.

And to clarify what I said earlier.. Socially liberal viewpoints can be rooted in conservative philosophy. For instance, Rand Paul's position on legalizing marijuana. That's a socially liberal viewpoint but it is rooted in Paul's conservative philosophy of unobtrusive federal government. So now... there you have a clearly defined example to demonstrate exactly what I said in on uncertain terms. If you still aren't getting it, I can't help you.

Wrong again, you don't have a philosophy or an ideology, just a collection of opinions.

 

[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 philosophy 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.

No, there is a very huge difference between an ideology and philosophy.

Ideology is the belief or allegiance to a specific set of ideas or ideals.

Philosophy is the appreciation of knowledge concerning a variety of ideas.

Ideology is accurate. But in the context of the term 'conservative philosophy', your chosen definition of philosophy is awkward and ungainly as it is uselessly vague. A much better choice would be:

Philosophy:

the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them:

Conservative philosophy is specific. This definition of philosophy is more specific. And thus more appropriate to the terms we're using.

And as I said, the primary difference would be ideals and principles. Which are very much related, if not exactly identical.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, there's a huge disconnect between what conservatives actually think and believe, and what ignorant, emotional twats like Candycorn have convinced themselves conservatives think and believe. That disconnect is called "reality as perceived by a functioning brain".

It's really kind of funny in a pathetic sort of way that Cornball considers herself such a strong defender of women's issues, and she's actually one of the biggest arguments I've ever seen for the position that women are too stupid to be allowed equality with men. Best thing she could do for women's rights is to vanish from public view.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I think he's saying that he's pro-"make statements with your brain, not your sandy vagina".

Did you really think your hysteria and vapors was representing a rational position worthy of taking seriously?

What am I saying? You're Cornball. You always think that, and it's always erroneous.

 

[hangover]

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?

Wish cons could make up their minds. Obama is a fascist? Obama is a communist? Obama is a Socialist? Demonizing bullshit is all you got, huh.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wish cons could make up their minds. Obama is a fascist? Obama is a communist? Obama is a Socialist? Demonizing bullshit is all you got, huh.

I wish Soros drones had an IQ above 40, so that they could learn simple concepts.

But alas, you can only chant memes from the hate sites.....

 

[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.

Why would a socialist be his hero????

Since you don't know the difference between a fascist and a socialist, go back to the sandbox and play.

 

[Liminal]

[
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.

The problem is that you have no understanding of "liberal."

You and your fellow Soros drones are leftists - there is nothing even remotely "liberal" about you. You promote the ideas of Karl Marx and Benito Mussolini - not Tom Jefferson and George Mason. This is true even if your handlers have not programmed you to grasp this fact.

I did? Really? When did I do that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Watching Cornball conduct a political debate is like watching a puppy attack a stuffed animal: she growls and snarls and pounces like she's facing a timber wolf, and the straw man just lies there.

 

[hangover]

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".

Poor cons, they promise smaller government, lower taxes, no deficit spending. But Raygun triples the debt after promising to balance the budget. Shrub daddy raises taxes. And shrub Jr. doubles the debt again with a republican house and senate. Then they play the victims when nobody believes their bullshit any more.

 

[Skylar]

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????

Since you don't know the difference between a fascist and a socialist, go back to the sandbox and play.

Both are just random pejoratives to many on the right. They don't actually know what the terms mean. Nor particularly care. You're dealing with the right wing equivalent of calling someone a 'poopyhead'.

Which is amusing, given Uncensored occasional hang wringing over the 'meaning of words'.

 

[Boss]

And here's the crux of the alleged argument: Republicans make wise decisions based on time honored principles, while Democrats are robotic ideologues waiting for instructions. Does that about sum up your "philosophy"?

Why did you switch from talking about Conservatives to talking about Republicans? From where I sit, the GOP has yet to embrace Conservative philosophy. The past two elections, they have gone with candidates who seem to want to apologize for Conservatism and distance themselves from Conservative philosophy. I think that is a mistake and they should return to the thing that won landslides for them under Reagan, a Conservative philosophy.

Here's how the definitions break down for me... Conservatism is basically common sense pragmatism. Philosophy is the love of wisdom with regard to many ideas. Conservative philosophy is the love and appreciation for wisdom surrounding pragmatic common sense ideas. Liberalism is an ideology. I don't know if they wait for instructions.

 

[Liminal]

And here's the crux of the alleged argument: Republicans make wise decisions based on time honored principles, while Democrats are robotic ideologues waiting for instructions. Does that about sum up your "philosophy"?

Why did you switch from talking about Conservatives to talking about Republicans? From where I sit, the GOP has yet to embrace Conservative philosophy. The past two elections, they have gone with candidates who seem to want to apologize for Conservatism and distance themselves from Conservative philosophy. I think that is a mistake and they should return to the thing that won landslides for them under Reagan, a Conservative philosophy.

Here's how the definitions break down for me... Conservatism is basically common sense pragmatism. Philosophy is the love of wisdom with regard to many ideas. Conservative philosophy is the love and appreciation for wisdom surrounding pragmatic common sense ideas. Liberalism is an ideology. I don't know if they wait for instructions.

I see, so your argument is really sort of an academic exercise of philosophy vs ideology. Not so much about how real people actually think and behave.