So, what's the problem with Sarah Palin?

[daveman]

Conservative progress by inches, then?

You were a Bushbot, because he was inches to the Right of Gore and Kerry.

Unsurprisingly, you willfully ignore all the times I criticized Bush. But leftists have a desperate need to attempt to define reality according to their fantasies.

Like a drooling idiot leftist would ever admit anything good about conservatism anyway.

Again, you're failing to take into account that conservatives can think for themselves.

That's because you can't do that for yourself.

You didn't answer the bolded question, like I predicted.

It didn't deserve an answer. And you can't think for yourself.

...and I didn't get one. Shocking!

Yes, you did. You can stamp your feet and pout and throw yet another in a seemingly endless series of temper tantrums, but you only make yourself look even more like a spoiled brat.

...so just take the easy way out and insult me again, earning yourself another blowjob from The T.

Oooh, leftist homophobia. THAT'S new.

Homophobia? Not at all - I wish you two lots of love and happiness! Just don't forget to give him a reach-around.

Oh, that's right -- gays are supposed to be grateful that leftists use homosexuality as an insult.

 

[daveman]

Who is asking them to walk in lockstep?

Let's take that: if they aren't walking in lockstep, that would mean that you have a bunch of different conservative candidates running against each other, right? because all the non-lockstep-walking conservatives are going with their own guy...right?

But that's not happening. You have no conservatives left, vying for the GOP nomination.

According to who? You?

What did I tell you about drooling idiot leftists dictating who and who isn't conservative?

No, according to you:

​

Can you explain, or are you going to pull another "synthia is demanding an answer' response to get out of actual debate? It IS your M.O.

You mean debate like "...earning yourself another blowjob from The T"?

Nah, that was just a throwaway line to get you to respond. There's plenty of substance in that post - yet you chose to ignore it, as usual.

Here it is again:

if they aren't walking in lockstep, that would mean that you have a bunch of different conservative candidates running against each other, right? because all the non-lockstep-walking conservatives are going with their own guy...right?


​

So - easy answer - which of the remaining four candidates is a conservative?

Can you answer that, please?

I don't dance to your tune, Tantrum Boi.

I see no need to answers your questions, because you're not interested in discussion. All you want to do is screech "GOTCHA!!" and spout some leftist bullshit.

Now, go ahead, and throw another tantrum. We both know you're going to.

 

[daveman]

Come on Daveman. Which of the current Repub candidates are conservative?

 

[sitarro]

You need to ask - the list is long and boring. However, she was almost bested by that moron from Minnesota, Michelle Bachmann. Bachmann is serving her 6th term representing a district in Minnesota. Leading me to believe the Minnesotans who support her all suffer from terminal brain freeze or they're just as moronic as she. Either way, she's a poster child for why those who serve in Congress need to have term limits.

10 of the Craziest Things Bachmann has said - proving that no one is too stupid to be a Republican in Congress.

(1) BACHMANN WARNED ‘THE LION KING’ WAS GAY PROPAGANDA.
(2) BACHMANN CLAIMED ABOLISHING THE MINIMUM WAGE WOULD CREATE JOBS.
(3) BACHMANN CLAIMED THAT SCIENTISTS ARE SUPPORTERS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
(4) BACHMANN CLAIMED TERRI SCHIAVO WAS ‘HEALTHY’.
(5) BACHMANN LIKENED VISITING IRAQ TO VISITING MALL OF AMERICA.
(6) BACHMANN CLAIMED THAT CARBON DIOXIDE IS ‘HARMLESS.
(7) BACHMANN CALLED FOR A CONGRESSIONAL WITCH HUNT. Claimed Obama's alleged relationship with Weather Underground member, William Ayers because they served on a Board together.
(8) BACHMANN SUGGESTED GAY SINGER (Melissa Etheridge) SHOULD REPENT AFTER GETTING CANCER
(9) BACHMANN BOASTED ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW: claimed her family would not be taking the 2010 Census because the Constitution didn't require that information. The United States Census is a decennial census mandated by the United States Constitution starting in 1790.
(10) BACHMANN CLAIMED THAT GLENN BECK COULD SOLVE THE DEBT CRISIS.

Face it, Sarah Palin was Conservative, a little nutty and wasn't elected. Michelle Bachmann is an ultra-rightwing fruitcake who has been elected 6 times. No wonder this country is going to hell. We may very well pull out of this economic crisis. In fact, I have faith in the power of the people. But what are we going to do with the degree of unabashed ignorance, which is flourishing all over this country.

Poli_Sigh eh, why do you limit yourself to just Republican oddities, How about Sheila Jackson Lee?

 

[Synthaholic]

So, daveman - I ask again: which conservative are you backing for POTUS in 2012?

That is a good question. Who are you for Daveman.

So - easy answer - which of the remaining four candidates is a conservative?

Can you answer that, please?

Come on Daveman. Which of the current Repub candidates are conservative?

Can you explain, or are you going to pull another "synthia is demanding an answer' response to get out of actual debate? It IS your M.O.

...

I don't dance to your tune, Tantrum Boi.

 

[Synthaholic]

Poli_Sigh eh, why do you limit yourself to just Republican oddities, How about Sheila Jackson Lee?

Was she running for POTUS? No.

 

[Article 15]

I don't dance to your tune, Tantrum Boi.

What's ironic about Daveman taking this tact is that he often bumps his own interrogative posts when he doesn't get an answer from the poster they are directed at.

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't dance to your tune, Tantrum Boi.

What's ironic about Daveman taking this tact is that he often bumps his own interrogative posts when he doesn't get an answer from the poster they are directed at.

Plus, he wants to make it all about me, when at least two other people in this thread have asked him that direct question.

What's he afraid of?

 

[Article 15]

What's ironic about Daveman taking this tact is that he often bumps his own interrogative posts when he doesn't get an answer from the poster they are directed at.

Plus, he wants to make it all about me, when at least two other people in this thread have asked him that direct question.

What's he afraid of?

That the messageboard conservative's unicorn candidate doesn't exist.

 

[Article 15]

Daveman, who is the conservative candidate are you supporting in 2012?

 

[JimBowie1958]

What's ironic about Daveman taking this tact is that he often bumps his own interrogative posts when he doesn't get an answer from the poster they are directed at.

Plus, he wants to make it all about me, when at least two other people in this thread have asked him that direct question.

What's he afraid of?

Whats to be afraid of some old dumbass like you?

What right do you have to know what candidate he supports assuming he even has decided yet?

You are just another clown throwing poop and bullshit around to distract from the main points people like Dave make.

You are a pathetic loser.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Daveman, who is the conservative candidate are you supporting in 2012?

Why do you assume he has decided yet?

 

[JimBowie1958]

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld (Booga booga! Don't pee your pants, Synthia!), you go to the election with the candidate you have, not the candidate you want.

Still waiting to hear from daveman why, in a supposedly conservative country, you have to go with a non-conservative candidate to lead a conservative party.

Why don't conservatives have enough influence in your party to go with the candidate you want?

Good question.

Jesus I think I am going insane when I see Synthaclown making sense.

Synthaclown, please dont say something rational without warning again, OK?

That is just rude for you to break your pattern so unexpectedly.

 

[Article 15]

Daveman, who is the conservative candidate are you supporting in 2012?

Why do you assume he has decided yet?

He can answer with "I'm not supporting one" or "I haven't decided yet"

But if it makes you feel better:

Daveman, have you decided which conservative candidate to support in 2012?

If so, who is it?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Daveman, who is the conservative candidate are you supporting in 2012?

Why do you assume he has decided yet?

He can answer with "I'm not supporting one" or "I haven't decided yet"

But if it makes you feel better:

Daveman, have you decided which conservative candidate to support in 2012?

If so, who is it?

Have you decided who you support?

I have made a pecking order:

1) Ron Paul

2) Santorum

3) Gingrich

(A HUGE distance of complete void)

3,479) Obama

(Another HUGE distance of absolute VOID)

20,349,588,092,345,097,028,634,502,834,650,233) Shoot me

20,349,588,092,345,097,028,634,502,834,650,234) The Anti-Christ

20,349,588,092,345,097,028,634,593,897,234,897) Romney...maybe

 

[Article 15]

Have you decided who you support?

I will be supporting and voting for Obama in the general election but I will be voting for Ron Paul in the Massachusetts primary.

 

[Synthaholic]

I will be voting for Obama in the general, and I couldn't vote in the FL GOP primary because I'm not registered Republican.

If there had been a more Liberal candidate challenging Obama, I would have voted for them in the FL Democratic primary.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Daveman............which one of the 4 GOP candidates do you consider the most qualified conservative?

 

[Luissa]

Why do you assume he has decided yet?

He can answer with "I'm not supporting one" or "I haven't decided yet"

But if it makes you feel better:

Daveman, have you decided which conservative candidate to support in 2012?

If so, who is it?

Have you decided who you support?

I have made a pecking order:

1) Ron Paul

2) Santorum

3) Gingrich

(A HUGE distance of complete void)

3,479) Obama

(Another HUGE distance of absolute VOID)

20,349,588,092,345,097,028,634,502,834,650,233) Shoot me

20,349,588,092,345,097,028,634,502,834,650,234) The Anti-Christ

20,349,588,092,345,097,028,634,593,897,234,897) Romney...maybe

How can anyone be for Ron Paul and have Santorum as their second choice? The two are only similar on a few issues.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How can anyone be for Ron Paul and have Santorum as their second choice? The two are only similar on a few issues.

I look at the candidates along five different gray scales of behavior and ideology.

1. Belief in the Federal government adhering to its constitutional limits.

I think the federal government has gone way past the scope of its Constitutional responsibilities and it is trampling on individual civil rights via its use of the presumption of guilt with warrantless searches of US citizens and vehicles. We have allowed the government to simply give an excuse and then it can violate every constitutional right we have from habeus corpus to the right to a trial by our peers. Hell,the feds can even assassinate you if it deems you to be a terrorist with never a chance to defend yourself in a trial.

I rate Paul very strong in this category and Santorum strong too but less than Paul.

2. Preference for subsidiarity in government policies and activity.

We need to let lower levels of government handle problems as much as possible, and preferably at the individual level by providing incentives to each person to act in ways that benefit themsleves and the greater society.

Paul is strong on prefering less government, but I think he goes too far a tad and sees little justifiable role for the government in areas where I think the government is properly the primary responsible institution; things like setting standards, enforcing safety standards, protecting the environment, etc. Santorum is more my preference here in that he does see this role and wants the government to have a light touch where it does step in.

3. Their personal character.

I admire Paul for his consistency and depth of thought. I admire Santorum for his comitment to his family, church and community.

4. Their economic beliefs and how the government should interact in the economy.

Basically Paul is deeply concerned about the Federal Reserve and the Keynesian use of governemnt spending to spur the economy and I agree with him on these issues. Santorum is less concerned by the Federal Reserve, apparently, but seems to be a dissident on Keynesianism and he does still see a positive role for the government to play in society but within the bounds of the principle of subsidiarity. So both are strong here but in different ways, IMO, Santorum being more traditonal and predictable. I do not have a strong preference of one over the other in this regard.

I think Keynesianism good in theory but a vital part of that set of theories is that we pay down our national debt in times of prosperity and we really havent done anything like that since the 1950s, so in effect I dont think it is something our political system can pursue constructively.

The Federal Reserve I think is by its very concept hostile to the spirit and intent of our Constitution. The US Congress is supposed to have the Treasury MINT our currency, not outsource it to a conglomeration of banks to substitute coinage with bank notes. This is about to bite us all in the ass really hard.

5. Their preferences for use of military force in pursuit of American interests.

Santorum falls in the category of reluctant interventionism, IMO, while Paul sees the deeper problem to be our over-reach remaining to committed to so many places where we once had valid reason to be involved but whose time of need has long expired. We have too many irons in too many other peoples fires, so to speak.

While Santorum doesnt seem to appreciate this over-reach, he is at least loyal to our allies and willnot simply walk away from them and leave to the mercies of their enemies like
Obama isnow doing to Karzai and Isreal, IMO.

So while they are different in much of their approaches, they still hold to the essentials and advance us in the right direction for the most part.

Santorum is the more comfortable preference for me, and Paul more risky in that I dont know what limits Paul would go to to reign in the government, withdraw from global security commitments and roll back the Federal Reserve, among other things.

So, overall I have a significant preference for Paul since the problem is more of government over-reach and excess and where he would err, IMO, he is so far from doing damage given the political realities in DC that I dont consider it a factor.