• 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.

The Conservative Disclaimer (re: Romney)

OpportunityCost said:
Do you proof read the crap you type before you post it? Because this is some insane stuff here.
Click to expand...

Rick wants to legislate morality, that is clear....and you say MY stuff is insane?
 
UtahBill said:
don't know how old you are, I am 65, and conservatism has changed in the last 40 years..... Eisenhower is spinning in his grave a lot lately.....
Click to expand...

I'll be 38 in July. In my mind true Conservatism is a Universal principle, not an American one. Though we're about the only western nation that even stands a chance of ever actually returning to it.


FilmFestGuy said:
So he's the closest why? Is it because he wants to control everyone's sex life and their ability to see nudie pictures? Is that why he's closest? Is it because he thinks the birth control pill is the bane of all that is evil? Is it because he thinks gays are icky? Or is it because he would prefer the US pretend like it's 13th Century Europe that makes him closest to being a "true conservative"?
Click to expand...

How about all of the above. Social Conservatism outweighs Fiscal Conservatism. You cannot truly be a Social Conservative without being a Fiscal Conservative but the opposite isn't necessarily true.


UtahBill said:
Rick San-Taliban-torum ??? last thing we need is a fundi/militant/fanatical Christian running this country.....
Click to expand...

No. The last thing we need is more of the same from the next generation of the same imbeciles we've been electing for the last 150 years.
 
Tigger said:
How about all of the above. Social Conservatism outweighs Fiscal Conservatism. You cannot truly be a Social Conservative without being a Fiscal Conservative but the opposite isn't necessarily true.
Click to expand...
Define your version of social conservatism and I bet you I can find someone to fit the scenario you describe. Not everyone fits into nice little groups like gov't offcials would like them to. Don't fall prey to the "classing" generation. For instance, I am socially conservative. But I don't believe the gov't should be regulating gay marriage or pornography. I think both are reprehensible but I also realize that if the gov't can tell others what to do in those realms its only a matter of time before they tell me what to do in my "normal" practices.

Tigger said:
No. The last thing we need is more of the same from the next generation of the same imbeciles we've been electing for the last 150 years.
Click to expand...
You do understand you are grouping quite a few great leaders in when you use the 150 years time frame right? Those names include Abraham Lincoln, JFK, and Ronald Reagan. The best part is, you think Rick Santorum is supposed to be the "answer" to this group of "imbeciles". You wanna revise that statement?
 
MarineTpartier said:
Define your version of social conservatism and I bet you I can find someone to fit the scenario you describe. Not everyone fits into nice little groups like gov't offcials would like them to. Don't fall prey to the "classing" generation. For instance, I am socially conservative. But I don't believe the gov't should be regulating gay marriage or pornography. I think both are reprehensible but I also realize that if the gov't can tell others what to do in those realms its only a matter of time before they tell me what to do in my "normal" practices.
Click to expand...

12th Century Norman Society would be a good example of Conservatism as I define it, MTP.


MarineTpartier said:
You do understand you are grouping quite a few great leaders in when you use the 150 years time frame right? Those names include Abraham Lincoln, JFK, and Ronald Reagan. The best part is, you think Rick Santorum is supposed to be the "answer" to this group of "imbeciles". You wanna revise that statement?
Click to expand...

I am quite well aware of the individuals who are included in that timeframe. Lincoln was this nation's WORST President in my mind. Who knows what JFK would have been. Reagan breeds no great love in my heart either. Santorum is not "the answer" but he is at least an option that Conservatives could get behind, unlike Romney or Gingrich. He's the best of a flawed field, philosophically; and since no Republican in the field is going to beat Obama, why not actually do something principled for a change, before the Republican party becomes as worthless as the Democrats?
 
Tigger said:
I'll be 38 in July. In my mind true Conservatism is a Universal principle, not an American one. Though we're about the only western nation that even stands a chance of ever actually returning to it.

How about all of the above. Social Conservatism outweighs Fiscal Conservatism. You cannot truly be a Social Conservative without being a Fiscal Conservative but the opposite isn't necessarily true.

No. The last thing we need is more of the same from the next generation of the same imbeciles we've been electing for the last 150 years.
Click to expand...

You write strange things. A person can't be ProLife unless they also are for cutting off all aid to impoverished single mothers. Yeah, that makes sense.
 
Tigger said:
I am quite well aware of the individuals who are included in that timeframe. Lincoln was this nation's WORST President in my mind.
Click to expand...

Because he was the creation of the Republican Party? Or the Emancipation Proclaiming freeing all slaves? I suspect you mean the latter.
 
Tigger said:
I'll be 38 in July. In my mind true Conservatism is a Universal principle, not an American one. Though we're about the only western nation that even stands a chance of ever actually returning to it.




How about all of the above. Social Conservatism outweighs Fiscal Conservatism. You cannot truly be a Social Conservative without being a Fiscal Conservative but the opposite isn't necessarily true.




No. The last thing we need is more of the same from the next generation of the same imbeciles we've been electing for the last 150 years.
Click to expand...

imbeciles? some of them aren't even THAT smart....GWB was an embarassment, McCain could have been, likewise Rick S. or Rick P......
I may have to stop voting GOP.
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
As much as I would prefer either Santorum or Gingrich over Romney, it appears that Romney will win the nomination and the Presidency. In the event that that is the case, I'm creating a disclaimer for all conservatives. Think of it as a way of separating our ideals from his.
Click to expand...

Okay, so this is your offer to conservatives to admit that they do not have the courage of their convictions, and that the Republican Party really has been taken over by fanatics that are more interested in winning elections, and being the Party in Power, than they are about being a Party of Ideals, and ideas. That The Republicans really don't care about the country nearly as much as they care about wresting back control.

Well, hey. Thank you for at least being honest...
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
You write strange things. A person can't be ProLife unless they also are for cutting off all aid to impoverished single mothers. Yeah, that makes sense.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I simply said that someone who is a Social Conservative is almost automatically an Economic Conservative while it doesn't work the other way around.

Cutting off Aid to Impoverished Single Mothers for SOCIAL reasons also has an Economic Savings. Wanting to cut spending (an Economically Conservative idea) doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be cut from the right places. It could be cut from the Military, Homeland Security, etc... instead of Welfare, SS, Medicare, etc....


joko104 said:
Because he was the creation of the Republican Party? Or the Emancipation Proclaiming freeing all slaves? I suspect you mean the latter.
Click to expand...

Actually the latter is the only decent thing he did; though it should not have applied to the legally sovereign nation that he had Federal Troops invade. That is why I have no use for him.


UtahBill said:
imbeciles? some of them aren't even THAT smart....GWB was an embarassment, McCain could have been, likewise Rick S. or Rick P...... I may have to stop voting GOP.
Click to expand...

If you're voting for a Party rather than an individual, then you're an imbecile to start with. Santorum is the only one of that crew that I would call even moderately Conservative.
 
Czernobog said:
Okay, so this is your offer to conservatives to admit that they do not have the courage of their convictions, and that the Republican Party really has been taken over by fanatics that are more interested in winning elections, and being the Party in Power, than they are about being a Party of Ideals, and ideas. That The Republicans really don't care about the country nearly as much as they care about wresting back control.

Well, hey. Thank you for at least being honest...
Click to expand...
IMO, Wall Street and the GOP (party of greed) has done more to destroy the USA than the USSR could have possibly imagined. I see Romney as a Wall Street insider, more businessman than politician, and he can either use his knowledge to reform Wall Street, or further destroy the USA. Certainly the polliticians have done too much damage....
 
Tigger said:
That's not what I said. I simply said that someone who is a Social Conservative is almost automatically an Economic Conservative while it doesn't work the other way around.

Cutting off Aid to Impoverished Single Mothers for SOCIAL reasons also has an Economic Savings. Wanting to cut spending (an Economically Conservative idea) doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be cut from the right places. It could be cut from the Military, Homeland Security, etc... instead of Welfare, SS, Medicare, etc....




Actually the latter is the only decent thing he did; though it should not have applied to the legally sovereign nation that he had Federal Troops invade. That is why I have no use for him.




If you're voting for a Party rather than an individual, then you're an imbecile to start with. Santorum is the only one of that crew that I would call even moderately Conservative.
Click to expand...

so we need MORE CONSERVATISM? social and financial?
I think financial conservatism is a good thing, social is not. we cannot engineer or legislate morality, but we can make sure that the govt doesn't have to support it financially....if you want porn, abortion on demand, etc., pay for it out of your own pocket...
 
UtahBill said:
so we need MORE CONSERVATISM? social and financial?
I think financial conservatism is a good thing, social is not. we cannot engineer or legislate morality, but we can make sure that the govt doesn't have to support it financially....if you want porn, abortion on demand, etc., pay for it out of your own pocket...
Click to expand...

Then we really have no basis for a discussion on this topic, now do we?
 
It's very interesting that this primary campaign is exposing a fundamental crisis of identity among US conservatives. From Romney, through Gingrich and Santorum to Paul we are seeing a dilemma about what exactly being conservative really means. There is no doubt that there is a very, very large ideological and philosophical diversity between each candidate and their followers but the confusion arises because each claims that they represent 'real' conservative values, that their candidate is the authentic conservative choice. The problem that this exposes is a part of the weakness of the two-party system because it forces people with radically divergent political and social views to shoe-horn themselves into a single party and single candidacy. How can a single party be expected to present a united front while it has strands of internal opinion as divergent as the foreign policies of Paul and Santorum, the economic positions of Romney and Santorum or the social values of Paul and Gingrich?

Wouldn't an electoral system more akin to the French system of two-round presidential elections allow greater plurality in the first round and equal clarity in a two-horse final round?

This might not solve the philosophical schizophrenia of the conservative side of the political spectrum, but it would ensure that individual political parties do not tear themselves apart as the GOP appears to be doing during this year's primary campaign.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Romney may win the nomination, but he won't win in November.

True conservatives will stay home or vote third party if Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee.
Click to expand...

And those True Conservatives that either stay home or vote 3rd party will only have themselves to blame for 4 more years of Obama. Instead of viewing Romney as NOT Conservative enough, why don't you view a Romney win as an adance towards the center instead of four more years of radical left governing from Obama.
 
Andalublue said:
This might not solve the philosophical schizophrenia of the conservative side of the political spectrum, but it would ensure that individual political parties do not tear themselves apart as the GOP appears to be doing during this year's primary campaign.
Click to expand...

The thing is that the Republican Party needs to determine who/what it is. Is it the party of Willard Mitt Romney? Is it the party of Social Conservatism? Is it something else alltogether? Only once the party has determined what it is can it move forward in whatever direction that is. Until then they will be 5 or 6 different dogs all trying to pull the sled in different direction and getting nowhere.
 
Sparky said:
And those True Conservatives that either stay home or vote 3rd party will only have themselves to blame for 4 more years of Obama. Instead of viewing Romney as NOT Conservative enough, why don't you view a Romney win as an adance towards the center instead of four more years of radical left governing from Obama.
Click to expand...

How about because some of us don't believe in the Centerl. Anything to our Left may as well be Marx or Lenin.
 
Tigger said:
The thing is that the Republican Party needs to determine who/what it is. Is it the party of Willard Mitt Romney? Is it the party of Social Conservatism? Is it something else alltogether? Only once the party has determined what it is can it move forward in whatever direction that is. Until then they will be 5 or 6 different dogs all trying to pull the sled in different direction and getting nowhere.
Click to expand...

Tigger, I really don't see why you are ever holding out for the GOP. The GOP will NEVER be authoritarian like yourself, therefore, the GOP will never be far enough to the right for you.

The only party I can think of that would even come close to being what you would like is some sort of authoritarian party, which I don't even know if one exists offhand.

Even Santorum isn't as far right as your values dictate.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
So Black and white, eh?
Click to expand...

Yes, Black & White.


TheNextEra said:
Tigger, I really don't see why you are ever holding out for the GOP. The GOP will NEVER be authoritarian like yourself, therefore, the GOP will never be far enough to the right for you.

The only party I can think of that would even come close to being what you would like is some sort of authoritarian party, which I don't even know if one exists offhand.

Even Santorum isn't as far right as your values dictate.
Click to expand...

You might be surprised at how far Right the GOP might go; or more importantly the number of Right Wingers who could be drawn off into a truly Conservative Party IF the Republicans were to finally suggest that they no longer were willing to listen to those voices (as is apparently becoming the case more and more these days).
 
Tigger said:
How about because some of us don't believe in the Centerl. Anything to our Left may as well be Marx or Lenin.
Click to expand...

Then you are living proof that Conservatives are just as millitant, intolerant and pompous as their Liberal adversaries. Why should independents vote for Republicans if their agenda strips us of just as much of our freedom?
 
Tigger said:
You might be surprised at how far Right the GOP might go; or more importantly the number of Right Wingers who could be drawn off into a truly Conservative Party IF the Republicans were to finally suggest that they no longer were willing to listen to those voices (as is apparently becoming the case more and more these days).
Click to expand...

50 years ago maybe, but I think those days are long gone. Even most that call themselves conservatives aren't social conservatives. Social conservatism is dying down or morphing into a pseudo-liberal form of 30 years ago.

I realize we have different views of conservatism so I'm not going to argue with you on what a conservative is, I'm only saying that your form of a true conservative is in the extreme minority and short of an apocolyse stands little or no chance of ever gaining power again. I used to say never, but I never underestimate the ability of humans in time of peril to resort back to an authoritarian nature of survival of the fittest.
 
Sparky said:
Then you are living proof that Conservatives are just as millitant, intolerant and pompous as their Liberal adversaries. Why should independents vote for Republicans if their agenda strips us of just as much of our freedom?
Click to expand...

Why would I care who an independent votes for? I'm a Conservative, not a Republican. In MOST elections I end up not voting for either candidate because neither one is a Conservative.

As for Freedom..... Highly Overrated as Rights go, in my opinion
 
TheNextEra said:
50 years ago maybe, but I think those days are long gone. Even most that call themselves conservatives aren't social conservatives. Social conservatism is dying down or morphing into a pseudo-liberal form of 30 years ago.

I realize we have different views of conservatism so I'm not going to argue with you on what a conservative is, I'm only saying that your form of a true conservative is in the extreme minority and short of an apocolyse stands little or no chance of ever gaining power again. I used to say never, but I never underestimate the ability of humans in time of peril to resort back to an authoritarian nature of survival of the fittest.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Then humanity no longer has any more value than the cockroach or the bubonic plague virus and we'd be better off being eradicated from the planet.
 
Sparky said:
Then you are living proof that Conservatives are just as millitant, intolerant and pompous as their Liberal adversaries. Why should independents vote for Republicans if their agenda strips us of just as much of our freedom?
Click to expand...


You have to understand Tigger is an all or nothing type of guy. He is more of a authoritarian of the right. I'm not insulting him either on this as he is a self-proclaimed authoritarian.

While I don't even come close to agreeing with him on much of anything, I do admire the fact he doesn't let popularity waver him from his beliefs. Even as backwards as I think his beliefs are. For the most part I think he is very consistant on his views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom