• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Carville to GOP: You have a disaster on your hands

Bob Blaylock said:
It seems that you've identified, here, an example of classic Orwellian Doublethink. Teamosil's statement of “placing more priority on individual liberty and being more accepting of economic intervention by government” amounts to a long-winded way of saying “Freedom is slavery.”
Click to expand...

I should have said "personal liberty" instead of "individual liberty". But personal liberty and economic liberty are definitely different things. That's obvious, no?
 
teamosil said:
I should have said "personal liberty" instead of "individual liberty". But personal liberty and economic liberty are definitely different things. That's obvious, no?
Click to expand...

I think they are interrelated. determining what I do with the fruits of my labor is as much a personal liberty issue as an economic one. being forced to contribute 400 or 600 hours of labor a year to the government is a personal liberty issue. Owning a firearm is not an economic issue. nor is using my land in the way I want to easily pigeonholed.
 
TurtleDude said:
99 to life or the needle

freedom is pretty much a non issue
Click to expand...

I honestly just don't understand the Republican view of freedom... Government blowing up entire countries, that's fine. Government deciding what pregnancies need to be carried to term, that's fine. Government killing citizens, that's fine. Government deciding who can marry who, that's fine. Government spying on its own citizens, that's fine. Government locking up people with no trial in secret prisons and torturing them, that's fine.

But a half a penny tax on gas! That's TYRANNY!!!!!!

lol.
 
teamosil said:
I honestly just don't understand the Republican view of freedom... Government blowing up entire countries, that's fine. Government deciding what pregnancies need to be carried to term, that's fine. Government killing citizens, that's fine. Government deciding who can marry who, that's fine. Government spying on its own citizens, that's fine. Government locking up people with no trial in secret prisons and torturing them, that's fine.

But a half a penny tax on gas! That's TYRANNY!!!!!!

lol.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your concept I guess

(I am pro choice btw)

rights created by courts matter more than ones clearly spelled out in the constitution

complaining corporations and the rich have too much wealth so the solution is concentrating all that wealth and power in the hands of the government

saying you have the freedom to marry whom you want to but denying (assuming you are rich) the right to leave that person all you have when you die

claiming that the heirs of a wealthy man didn't earn the wealth bequeathed them and then claiming the government did earn a right to take stuff that was already taxed

claiming you favor freedom of speech but then supporting the "fairness doctrine" which is government control of speech

claiming you believe in freedom but you want to ban people giving more than x amount to support a candidate

locking up people for owning guns you find scary
 
gasoline taxes are among the most rational and fair. the more you drive the more gas you buy meaning the more of the roads you use, the more you pay for them. I thought it was you lefties that hate fair taxes like that
 
teamosil said:
I should have said "personal liberty" instead of "individual liberty". But personal liberty and economic liberty are definitely different things. That's obvious, no?
Click to expand...

Liberty is liberty. Whether you try to call it “personal” or “individual” or “economic”, it's all the same thing. Your attempt to make a distinction that doesn't exist, for the sake of supporting your doublethink, is intellectually dishonest. You may be able to fool people in Than Fwathithco in this manner, but outside of that vile hellhole, most of the rest of us are smarter than that.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Liberty is liberty. Whether you try to call it “personal” or “individual” or “economic”, it's all the same thing. Your attempt to make a distinction that doesn't exist, for the sake of supporting your doublethink, is intellectually dishonest. You may be able to fool people in Than Fwathithco in this manner, but outside of that vile hellhole, most of the rest of us are smarter than that.
Click to expand...

Well, you're just arguing for a less precise terminology. In your "liberty is liberty" model, you couldn't distinguish between liberals and conservatives. They both favor some liberty and oppose others. The types of liberties they tend to fight for fall in clear camps. Liberals tend to oppose government involvement in people's personal lives, conservatives tend to oppose government involvement in stuff involving money. Whether you want to talk about it that way or not doesn't matter to me.
 
Mycroft said:
ummm...

Yes. Regulation of people's personal lives. Like telling people they MUST buy health insurance? Show me a liberal who opposes that, eh?
Click to expand...

That mandate has a financial reason that affects all of us, we can't keep paying for people who won't buy health insurance. You'd think Conservatives would understand than simple premise?
The mandate will end pre-existing conditions too, surely you don't support that scam by the insurance companies?
 
teamosil said:
Consider the distinction I made- liberals DO favor more regulation for economic stuff. But they are far more likely to oppose regulation of people's personal lives than conservatives are. And vice versa.
Click to expand...

Economic freedom IS personal freedom.
 
Carville is 100% right.

btw - I met him in 92 during the Clinton campaign and we talked for about ten minutes at Clinton's hotel in Ypsilanti, Michigan. He was surprised that he was recognized and we hit it off both as political junkies. He signed a Clinton bumper sticker for me.
 
Anyone else notice that it is only Liberals that think Newt can't win?
 
teamosil said:
Would it help if instead of "personal freedom" I said "freedom in areas that aren't about money"?
Click to expand...

Either way, it's a false distinction.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Anyone else notice that it is only Liberals that think Newt can't win?
Click to expand...

Yes, and these liberals don't hesitate to tell us who we should vote for.

I don't tell them who they should vote for in their primaries, they have no business telling me who to vote for in the GOP primaries.
 
Every candidate has baggage.

Can Ron Paul win since his Libertarian stance is that cocaine and heroin should be legal?
Can Rick Santorum win after making statements that courts should have ruled that contraception should be illegal?
Can Mitt Romney win after revealing that standard practice at his company (Bain) was to layoff workers?
 
Risky Thicket said:
Anyone notice that everyone who thinks Gingrich can win has their heads up their asses?
Click to expand...

That's just your opinion:

For the first time all year, Romney trailed among voters who said they cared most about picking a candidate who could defeat President Barack Obama this fall. Gingrich was ahead of the field for those voters' support.

Gingrich Wins South Carolina Primary
Click to expand...

Even PPP (a Democrat run poling agency) only has Obama up by 7%. RCP has the average around 11%. Neither number is overwhelmingly high.

And this article talks about how Obama is losing the swing states:

President Obama is underwater in key swing states, and faces electoral peril in November from both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, according to new polls released early Thursday by Quinnipiac University, which show Gingrich surging among Republicans in three important battlegrounds,
Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, leads the GOP field in each of the states -- Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- by double-digit margins. But perhaps more importantly, his ascent has not been confined to the Republican primary: Gingrich now runs only slightly worse against Obama than Romney, the former Massachusetts governor.

Gingrich Surges, Obama in Trouble in Swing State Polls - Steven Shepard - NationalJournal.com
Click to expand...
 
iguanaman said:
Dismiss him if you want, but he has been in the politics business a long time but he is not connected with the 2012 race at all. I'm afraid he is just calling it as he sees it.

BTW I am liberal because I THINK and am not easily swayed by lies and half-truths. I see no reason to be a Republican anymore except GREED if you are wealthy and even that it is a false hope. The musical chairs they want to play with the economy is not good for most of the wealthy either.
Click to expand...

are you guys a pair or know each other? what is his business now that you have put that on the table?
 
johnny_rebson said:
Every candidate has baggage.

Can Ron Paul win since his Libertarian stance is that cocaine and heroin should be legal?
Can Rick Santorum win after making statements that courts should have ruled that contraception should be illegal?
Can Mitt Romney win after revealing that standard practice at his company (Bain) was to layoff workers?
Click to expand...

That's my perspective as well. I don't honestly think any candidate can flush out Obama.

What I do know is that Romney is timid and boring, kind of like Bob Dole in '96. Sure he'll fight for some swing states and the polls will go back and forth, but ultimately it will a boring and rather indecisive race.

On the other hand, Gingrich is bold and has ideas. He'll challenge Obama on everything. He will debate well. Even if he doesn't win, it'll be interesting and a REAL fight. Obama will be forced to make promises of legislation to counter Gingrich, and to me that is a good thing. He hasn't done much of anything his first 4 years.

But maybe most importantly, I don't want to hear in 2016 "we nominated a moderate in 2008 and 2012. Now we need a conservative!" I'd rather let the party go full-on conservative against Obama, audaciously and daringly, and knowing how resilient and tactful Newt is I wouldn't be surprised if it became a real race.

I also feel vindicated for choosing him as one of the top 3 possible candidates from the beginning(haha). Newt 2012
 
ksu_aviator said:
Anyone else notice that it is only Liberals that think Newt can't win?
Click to expand...

I don't think he can win nor do the big bucks GOP donors in my neck of the woods-the people who were Bush's biggest financial supporters other than his crowd in texas
 
ksu_aviator said:
That's just your opinion:



Even PPP (a Democrat run poling agency) only has Obama up by 7%. RCP has the average around 11%. Neither number is overwhelmingly high.

And this article talks about how Obama is losing the swing states:
Click to expand...

Polls only matter if not much happens. Newt will make stuff happen. He knows this game. That's the biggest difference between him and Romney for me. Romney just acts like he's trying to sell me some used cars. It's tedious. It's boring. And ultimately, it's unconvincing.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Every candidate has baggage.

Can Ron Paul win since his Libertarian stance is that cocaine and heroin should be legal?
Can Rick Santorum win after making statements that courts should have ruled that contraception should be illegal?
Can Mitt Romney win after revealing that standard practice at his company (Bain) was to layoff workers?
Click to expand...

I think it was former Senator Alan Simpson who said "If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't... well, nothing else matters​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom