• 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.

Right Wing Media Launches All-Out Assault on Newt Gingrich

It seems like their smear campaign worked. The only part that isn't going to work is that Romney is not going to beat Obama.

I, for one, won't be voting for Romney. Something tells me I'm not the only ticked off conservative who is going to take it out on the GOP this November.

that is the difference between pragmatists and pillow headed purists. I would vote for Nasty newt if he wins the nomination because Obama sucks the worst. You on the other hand would help Obama get re-elected so you can piss and moan that Obama would have been beaten by Newt.
 
Only steers and queers come from Texas don't ya know:mrgreen:

I thought the migration was TO Texas from California not Texas to San Francisco!!
 
It seems like their smear campaign worked. The only part that isn't going to work is that Romney is not going to beat Obama.

I, for one, won't be voting for Romney. Something tells me I'm not the only ticked off conservative who is going to take it out on the GOP this November.
if you won't continue the fight just because you didn't get the nominee you want, then you lose for sure.
Are you a republican or not? Loyal GOP fall in line and vote for the party, after all is said and done.
Talk about your fair weather friends....:shock:
That being said, I feel the same about "NOOT"....
 
It seems like their smear campaign worked. The only part that isn't going to work is that Romney is not going to beat Obama.

I, for one, won't be voting for Romney. Something tells me I'm not the only ticked off conservative who is going to take it out on the GOP this November.

Don't come here talking about Obama after you helped him get 4 more years then.

Sorry, "a smear campaign." ****, politics is dirty. Newt knows that better than anybody, now he's complaining about the bloodsport that he played as well as anybody? Waaaaah!
 
"True Liberals" don't think Obama is liberal enough. "True Conservatives" don't think Romney is conservative enough.
Hasn't it occurred to the extemists that they don't have a voice no matter how vocal they are?
We haven't had a truly conservative president in the last 60 years, using the definition of conservative given by the far right.
Likewise for the Liberals.....
Face it, centrist, moderate, left leaning republicans, right leaning democrats....they are the power base behind a successful run for president...

Extremist? What the hell are you talking about? Correction, you do not know what you're talking about.

Extremist and you get anarchy. Every man for himself, no law but what you make. Very few conservatives are willing to go to that extreme. On the flip side, the left/liberals to their extreme and you get the most severe forms of autocratic socialism

A "moderate" is someone who either has liberal leanings but who doesn't want to wear the label of liberal or someone who has no idea what the **** to believe because they've got too much air in their ****ing head.

A conservative is one who generally speaking, wants to see the size and scope of government limited and who wants to limit the intrusion of government into our daily lives.

Few examples and take notes...

- Conservatives would have us lower taxes in order to stimulare market activity in order to raise tax revenues; liberals would raise taxes to increase those revenues

- Conservatives would limit government spending in order to balance budgets and eliminate deficit spending; liberals would raise taxes to accomplish it

- Conservatives would do away with affirmative action as reverse discrimination and an unlawful intrusion of government, while liberals would expand it

- Conservatives prefer judges who do not make law, but merely interpret it in accordance with constitutional principles; liberals would allow those principles to be "built upon" and altered with new case law

- Conservatives generally support the use of military force only when national interests are at stake; liberals would use it to enforce "moral imperatives", such as interceding in Darfur or such

Bottom line - Conservatism limits government involvement and action, while liberalism expands it.

THeres nothing...NADA..ZERO EXTREME in those principals
 
Extremist? What the hell are you talking about? Correction, you do not know what you're talking about.

Extremist and you get anarchy. Every man for himself, no law but what you make. Very few conservatives are willing to go to that extreme. On the flip side, the left/liberals to their extreme and you get the most severe forms of autocratic socialism

A "moderate" is someone who either has liberal leanings but who doesn't want to wear the label of liberal or someone who has no idea what the **** to believe because they've got too much air in their ****ing head.

A conservative is one who generally speaking, wants to see the size and scope of government limited and who wants to limit the intrusion of government into our daily lives.

Few examples and take notes...

- Conservatives would have us lower taxes in order to stimulare market activity in order to raise tax revenues; liberals would raise taxes to increase those revenues

- Conservatives would limit government spending in order to balance budgets and eliminate deficit spending; liberals would raise taxes to accomplish it

- Conservatives would do away with affirmative action as reverse discrimination and an unlawful intrusion of government, while liberals would expand it

- Conservatives prefer judges who do not make law, but merely interpret it in accordance with constitutional principles; liberals would allow those principles to be "built upon" and altered with new case law

- Conservatives generally support the use of military force only when national interests are at stake; liberals would use it to enforce "moral imperatives", such as interceding in Darfur or such

Bottom line - Conservatism limits government involvement and action, while liberalism expands it.

THeres nothing...NADA..ZERO EXTREME in those principals

the conservatives I know want smaller govt, unless it means losing those programs that benefit themselves.
Iraq 1 and 2 were started by a Bush, in response to a terrorist act committed by Saudis. Iraq was never a threat.
We have the lowest taxes in the last 60 years or so and yet we have millions of unemployed, where is that market stimulation?
Conserviaties may WANT smaller, limited govt, but when has a conservative president (name one) tried to accomplish it?
Affirmative Action? I joined the Navy in 1963, and at that time people of color were not allowed into the tech schools, but were steered into menial jobs like steward, cook, laundryman....it would be many more years before that started changing.
Reagan loved deficit spending, and the closest we have come to a balanced budget was when Clinton was the president.
or are all the history books printing lies?
 
I refuse to vote for someone who I can't stand.

that is the difference between pragmatists and pillow headed purists. I would vote for Nasty newt if he wins the nomination because Obama sucks the worst. You on the other hand would help Obama get re-elected so you can piss and moan that Obama would have been beaten by Newt.
 
if you won't continue the fight just because you didn't get the nominee you want, then you lose for sure.
Are you a republican or not? Loyal GOP fall in line and vote for the party, after all is said and done.
Talk about your fair weather friends....:shock:
That being said, I feel the same about "NOOT"....

I am not Republican, I am a conservative. The more time I spend listening to Republicans, the less I like them. I would go to the polls for either Newt, Santorum, or even Paul. I will never vote for Romney. Not now, not in a million years.

And when he does lose the general election, I hope the Republican party learns the lesson and quits taking Conservatives for granted. Somehow, I'm not optimistic that will happen, though.
 
[...] A conservative is one who generally speaking, wants to see the size and scope of government limited and who wants to limit the intrusion of government into our daily lives. [...]

:lamo Conservatives, who:

1. Want to intrude on women's lives by outlawing abortion.

2. Want to intrude on the lives of those with an alternate sexuality by banning gay marriage (and in some states, banning gay sex).

3. In the not too distant past, wanted to intrude on daily lives by banning interracial marriage.

4. Want to intrude on children's lives by teaching them religion (creationism) in school as a science.

5. Want to intrude on the daily lives of foreigners by unilaterally invading and destroying their countries.

6. Want to intrude on the religious lives of some by banning or restricting certain religions, such as Islam.

And that's just off the top of my head . . . .
 
the conservatives I know want smaller govt, unless it means losing those programs that benefit themselves.
Iraq 1 and 2 were started by a Bush, in response to a terrorist act committed by Saudis. Iraq was never a threat.
We have the lowest taxes in the last 60 years or so and yet we have millions of unemployed, where is that market stimulation?
Conserviaties may WANT smaller, limited govt, but when has a conservative president (name one) tried to accomplish it?
Affirmative Action? I joined the Navy in 1963, and at that time people of color were not allowed into the tech schools, but were steered into menial jobs like steward, cook, laundryman....it would be many more years before that started changing.
Reagan loved deficit spending, and the closest we have come to a balanced budget was when Clinton was the president.
or are all the history books printing lies?


You keep confusing conservative thought with "Conservatives" a political ideology
 
A "moderate" is someone who either has liberal leanings but who doesn't want to wear the label of liberal or someone who has no idea what the **** to believe because they've got too much air in their ****ing head.

I'm not much of a liberal (I don't think they want me for being too tainted by conservatism), but I certainly know what I believe on a lot of issues, giving me plenty of stuffs in my head.
 
I dislike it how party politicians attack their own like that. The Right "launches an all-out assault on Newt." I don't like how people in your own party can jump on you like that. Guess that's one reason I dislike politicians.
 
I'm not much of a liberal (I don't think they want me for being too tainted by conservatism), but I certainly know what I believe on a lot of issues, giving me plenty of stuffs in my head.

No explanation needed. I was a dumbass lib when I was in jr.high school. I get the attitude perfectly. Took years to unlearn all the bull**** I picked up from those days...

Starting with the idea that conservatives are close-minded old people living in some far away land... One of the more juvenile notions most libs hold.


Btw - Another definition for "moderate" is someone who simply hasn't had the chance yet to vote for the liberal --------> Go, Romney!
 
I'm not much of a liberal (I don't think they want me for being too tainted by conservatism), but I certainly know what I believe on a lot of issues, giving me plenty of stuffs in my head.

The funny thing is that true liberals think that moderates are closet conservatives.

On another site, I had a Conservative tell me that centrists didn't exist. Same guy who claimed "I'm not a Republican" went on a rant about how it was all black and white.
 
:lamo Conservatives, who:

1. Want to intrude on women's lives by outlawing abortion.

2. Want to intrude on the lives of those with an alternate sexuality by banning gay marriage (and in some states, banning gay sex).

3. In the not too distant past, wanted to intrude on daily lives by banning interracial marriage.

4. Want to intrude on children's lives by teaching them religion (creationism) in school as a science.

5. Want to intrude on the daily lives of foreigners by unilaterally invading and destroying their countries.

6. Want to intrude on the religious lives of some by banning or restricting certain religions, such as Islam.

And that's just off the top of my head . . . .

I'll take No.1 for 1 dollar...Abortion

Once conception occurs, an abortion is no longer taking care of a problem as an individual right, it is ending another life. Now you are interfering with another's rights in a very major way to exercise your own. Contraception is a way of exercising your individual rights before conception, while recognizing that there is a risk that contraception may fail.
 
A conservative is one who generally speaking, wants to see the size and scope of government limited and who wants to limit the intrusion of government into our daily lives.

Which is why the want the government to regulate morality, sexuality, and spirituality -- oh, and take over the religious training of our kids? Mmmkaythen. Department of Homeland Security was an enormous expansion of size and scope of government, as well.

Conservatives generally support the use of military force only when national interests are at stake; liberals would use it to enforce "moral imperatives", such as interceding in Darfur or such
What the hell was Iraq, then?

Bottom line - Conservatism limits government involvement and action, while liberalism expands it.
Oh, the Patriot Acts. Totally limited government involvement and action :rolleyes:

THeres nothing...NADA..ZERO EXTREME in those principals
They aren't principles. They're marketing slogans that the Republican Party uses to build it's brand name. If they were principles, they'd be following them, but they don't.
 
The funny thing is that true liberals think that moderates are closet conservatives.

You're either a conservative or you are not. You're a lib or you're not. Being a moderate is like being sorta pregnant. Its a rediculous category. If you look at the voting records of so called moderates in the House and Senate.
 
I'll take No.1 for 1 dollar...Abortion

Once conception occurs, an abortion is no longer taking care of a problem as an individual right, it is ending another life. Now you are interfering with another's rights in a very major way to exercise your own. Contraception is a way of exercising your individual rights before conception, while recognizing that there is a risk that contraception may fail.
The legal system of the U.S., as well as most major countries in the world, rule that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus. From what I understand historically, it has been mostly thus dating back to biblical times (and well before). Therefore, globally as well as historically, conservatives -- Christian conservatives (who initiated bans back in the 16th century) -- are intruding in the lives of women on the issue of outlawing abortion.

You owe me one dollar ;)

Futhermore, ultra conservatives like Rick Santorum want to allow states to outlaw contraception :shock:

Now you owe me two dollars :mrgreen:
 
The legal system of the U.S., as well as most major countries in the world, rule that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus. From what I understand historically, it has been mostly thus dating back to biblical times (and well before). Therefore, globally as well as historically, conservatives -- Christian conservatives (who initiated bans back in the 16th century) -- are intruding in the lives of women on the issue of outlawing abortion.

You owe me one dollar ;)

Futhermore, ultra conservatives like Rick Santorum want to allow states to outlaw contraception :shock:

Now you owe me two dollars :mrgreen:

WTF is ultra consevatives? Santorum is ultra?...lol

Again on conservative thought...a logical and rational definition of where life begins. I did not attempt to impose legal standards

One of the differences between conservative and liberal thought are their relationship to absolutes and relatives.

The divide when it comes to abortion is defining when a human life begins. Conservative thought takes it back to the moment of conception. An absolute. Because picking any other point is relativistic, meaning it can be changed at a whim (at any moment)

At one time, the relativistic point of definition was birth. In the womb, the fetus isn't human and has no rights. At the moment of birth, it became human with all said rights. But that definition has a problem. Two babies are conceived at the exact same time. One is born a month premature and so becomes a human and lives to grow up. The other is aborted two weeks after the birth of the first and so was never born, never became human and was never allowed to live. Yet both were at the same level of development and the aborted baby could have lived. Had it just been born a month early.

So the relativistic line was moved backwards to a point defined as viability outside the womb. At the level of medical science at the time, that was roughly the third trimester. But now science has moved even further. Exanple A was borne at 21 weeks and 5 days. Example B....born at 21 weeks and 6 days gestational age. This means both children were born just under 20 weeks from fertilization or only a few days past the midpoint of an average full-term pregnancy. Despite their premature births, both developed into healthy kids.

That is the standard today and there is every likelihood that at some point, a fetus can be sustained in an artificial womb of some sort until it can be "born" and go on to develop normally. So this relativistic standard is dependent on the current state of medical technology. A state which varies dependent on century, culture, locale and money. Is that a rational way to define humanity?

Relativism also has a very slippery slope the other direction. What is viability? A baby can be born and breath on its own, but it can't live on its own. Without the care of an adult, an adult with milk producing breasts or a milk substitute, the baby will die within a few days. Most children would die without care for the first several years. Maybe even the first decade. Does that mean they aren't human because they can't survive on their own?

Under a relativistic viewpoint, why should the age of abortion be something before birth? Why shouldn't it be up to the age the child proves it can survive totally on its own? How many adults can survive totally on their own? For how long.

And since we're being relative, lets take it a step further. The Nazis did this one, aborting, or exterminating if you will, adults who were physically or mentally unable to care for themselves. The mentally or physically infirm. They were a drain on the state, just as an unborn fetus is a drain on the host mother.
 
WTF is ultra consevatives? Santorum is ultra?...lol
Someone who supports outlawing contraception is ultra conservative, as I have already pointed out. If you would like to describe that as mainstream conservatism, well, let's see if any other conservatives back you up.

Again on conservative thought...a logical and rational definition of where life begins. I did not attempt to impose legal standards
It is a moral as well as legal standard. Abortion has been practiced for the last 4,000 years, all over the world.

The divide when it comes to abortion is defining when a human life begins. Conservative thought takes it back to the moment of conception. An absolute.
An absolute defined by the Catholic church circa 1588 (Pope Sixtus V). Not necessarily one adopted by anyone else -- so, we have the (conservative) church attempting force their morals upon (interfere in the lives of) others. Q.E.D.

As to the wordy remainder of your argument, I'm not going to quibble over trimesters and viability, since the current conservative position for the purposes of my previous list is to outlaw all abortion, period.
 
WTF is ultra consevatives? Santorum is ultra?...lol

Again on conservative thought...a logical and rational definition of where life begins. I did not attempt to impose legal standards

One of the differences between conservative and liberal thought are their relationship to absolutes and relatives.

The divide when it comes to abortion is defining when a human life begins. Conservative thought takes it back to the moment of conception. An absolute. Because picking any other point is relativistic, meaning it can be changed at a whim (at any moment)

At one time, the relativistic point of definition was birth. In the womb, the fetus isn't human and has no rights. At the moment of birth, it became human with all said rights. But that definition has a problem. Two babies are conceived at the exact same time. One is born a month premature and so becomes a human and lives to grow up. The other is aborted two weeks after the birth of the first and so was never born, never became human and was never allowed to live. Yet both were at the same level of development and the aborted baby could have lived. Had it just been born a month early.

So the relativistic line was moved backwards to a point defined as viability outside the womb. At the level of medical science at the time, that was roughly the third trimester. But now science has moved even further. Exanple A was borne at 21 weeks and 5 days. Example B....born at 21 weeks and 6 days gestational age. This means both children were born just under 20 weeks from fertilization or only a few days past the midpoint of an average full-term pregnancy. Despite their premature births, both developed into healthy kids.

That is the standard today and there is every likelihood that at some point, a fetus can be sustained in an artificial womb of some sort until it can be "born" and go on to develop normally. So this relativistic standard is dependent on the current state of medical technology. A state which varies dependent on century, culture, locale and money. Is that a rational way to define humanity?

Relativism also has a very slippery slope the other direction. What is viability? A baby can be born and breath on its own, but it can't live on its own. Without the care of an adult, an adult with milk producing breasts or a milk substitute, the baby will die within a few days. Most children would die without care for the first several years. Maybe even the first decade. Does that mean they aren't human because they can't survive on their own?

Under a relativistic viewpoint, why should the age of abortion be something before birth? Why shouldn't it be up to the age the child proves it can survive totally on its own? How many adults can survive totally on their own? For how long.

And since we're being relative, lets take it a step further. The Nazis did this one, aborting, or exterminating if you will, adults who were physically or mentally unable to care for themselves. The mentally or physically infirm. They were a drain on the state, just as an unborn fetus is a drain on the host mother.

A zygot is still going to be a zygot no matter what. I have no problem with it being aborted.
 
since the current conservative position for the purposes of my previous list is to outlaw all abortion, period.

Actually, I have more respect for the ones who say it should be outlawed in all cases than the ones who say excluding rape and incest. I mean, if abortion is "murder", as they claim it is, then allowing it in the case of rape is murdering a baby for something it's father did. Any one of them that say abortion is "murder" except in the case of rape is a hypocrite who just wants to punish women for being unchaste.

Not that I endorse the view, I think abortion should be allowed at least until viability. After that, I don't really know. Honestly, I just don't know. But, at least the ones who say absolutely always illegal aren't lying about their motivations.
 
Back
Top Bottom