“…Setting aside his personal life…”
It’s a good thing you did this, Sloth.
Making a person’s personal Life some type of litmus test as to whether someone is a “true” adherent to a POLITICAL philosophy takes one down a VERY slippery slope.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Setting aside his personal life…”
It’s a good thing you did this, Sloth.
Making a person’s personal Life some type of litmus test as to whether someone is a “true” adherent to a POLITICAL philosophy takes one down a VERY slippery slope.
Mufasa[/quote]
Why? I don’t trust adulterous liars to keep to vows in my own life, why wouldn’t I factor it into picking a person to trust with an entire nation? Out of the candidates, Santorum is easily the Conservative. And no, Ron Paul is a paleo-libertarian.
C’mon, Sloth…
Are you actually telling me that “true” conservatives don’t leave their wives; don’t get blow jobs; only have sex “missionary style”; aren’t gay; and DON’T LIE???
What you personally wish to have see in a candidate was not my point; it was defining a “true” adherent to a POLITICAL philosophy by a narrow range of personal “moral” criteria.
Mufasa
And be careful about making anyone a “saint”…INCLUDING Santorum.
Mufasa
Conservatism is absent minus the social plank, Mufasa. I’d even say the economic plank is less concrete, and more fluid, than the social. A Conservative will tell you it doesn’t really matter in the long run who wins this race if the traditional family structure and moral values aren’t there. The kids will be dumb and unruly. The young worker will be rarer. The elderly numerous and lonely. The social safety net unfunded. And the economy shrinking.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
What you personally wish to see in a candidate was not my point; it was defining a “true” adherent to a POLITICAL philosophy by a narrow range of personal “moral” criteria.
[/quote]
The moral criteria is the heart of Conservatism. You’re talking about libertarianism, if paired with economic liberalism. Leftism, if paired with progressive economics (existence of generous nanny state).
A test, Mufasa. And be honest…
I’m pro-life, would support an amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and woman, despise the sexualization of our media culture, etc. And, I’m a progressive. Sure I can claim to be, but it would be nonsense.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Sloth:
I agree that there will be a fracture of the GOP…and a big one…if the Party as a whole continues to try to define who is conservative or not, based on often very debatable (within the Party) criteria.
Romney is conservative…but it appears not “conservative enough” for many.
Mufasa[/quote]
The republican party has been imploding for a while now.
Obama’s not liberal enough for me.
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Sloth:
I agree that there will be a fracture of the GOP…and a big one…if the Party as a whole continues to try to define who is conservative or not, based on often very debatable (within the Party) criteria.
Romney is conservative…but it appears not “conservative enough” for many.
Mufasa[/quote]
The republican party has been imploding for a while now.
Obama’s not liberal enough for me.
[/quote]
Hate to see who would be.
I will be honest;
I think that this search for “Conservative Purity” will only lead to a bunch of liars and hypocrites.
People; regardless as to their political philosophy; are flawed and imperfect, Sloth.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I will be honest;
I think that this search for “Conservative Purity” will only lead to a bunch of liars and hypocrites.
People; regardless as to their political philosophy; are flawed and imperfect, Sloth.
Mufasa[/quote]
All men are flawed and imperfect, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aim for better. Aim for something less, and you’ll also get less than that. Soon, you’ll adjust your target even lower. And again, you’ll soon start falling short of even that. Repeat, enough times and you’ll have a few young folks trying to prop up a bunch of elderly divorcees–many with no children of their own. Well, the young folks not in prison or unemployed. Or perhaps working, but consuming as much tax money (if not more) than they produce.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I will be honest;
I think that this search for “Conservative Purity” will only lead to a bunch of liars and hypocrites.
People; regardless as to their political philosophy; are flawed and imperfect, Sloth.
Mufasa[/quote]
All men are flawed and imperfect, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aim for better. Aim for something less, and you’ll also get less than that. Soon, you’ll adjust your target even lower. And again, you’ll soon start falling short of even that. Repeat, enough times and you’ll have a few young folks trying to prop up a bunch of elderly divorcees–many with no children of their own. Well, the young folks not in prison or unemployed. Or perhaps working, but consuming as much tax money (if not more) than they produce.[/quote]
Thanks for the insight, Sloth.
I certainly understand now why the GOP is having such difficulty in fielding an “acceptable” candidate; and why frontrunners have changed more than Newt changes wives. I simply don’t think that this “perfect” candidate exist or is even possible.
I said it before (and I was raked over the coals for it); the GOP SEEMS to be a Party in a “battle for it’s Soul”.
Mufasa
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
This is why democracy is a bad idea.[/quote]
Hey when I was 20 I actually thought Ted Kennedy should be President. So don’t feel bad for saying stupid stuff.
[/quote]
Too bad you never got any smarter :/[/quote]
Oh you got confused again…lol. You see wanting someone like Ted Kennedy to be President is a stupid thing. Much like your idiotic comment on democracy. I’ve outgrown those idiotic statements and you’re still swimming knee deep in them.
Once again, age will take care of most of that.
Clear yet?
If not I can go over it again.
[/quote]
No, it’s perfectly clear. Your posts should be ignored the moment they stop focusing on political commentary and start commentating on other posters because when you do you stop being a good, contributing poster and become a rude troll :)[/quote]
Yet, you still respond. Now what does that say about your intelligence?
Now run along back to the “why am I still getting pimples at the age of 21” thread.
You don’t belong here anyway boy.
[/quote]
This is just sad. I don’t belong here anyway? LOL.
This is a privately owned forum. You have no say in whether I belong here or not. If I want to keep reading and commenting, there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
This is why democracy is a bad idea.[/quote]
Hey when I was 20 I actually thought Ted Kennedy should be President. So don’t feel bad for saying stupid stuff.
[/quote]
Too bad you never got any smarter :/[/quote]
Oh you got confused again…lol. You see wanting someone like Ted Kennedy to be President is a stupid thing. Much like your idiotic comment on democracy. I’ve outgrown those idiotic statements and you’re still swimming knee deep in them.
Once again, age will take care of most of that.
Clear yet?
If not I can go over it again.
[/quote]
No, it’s perfectly clear. Your posts should be ignored the moment they stop focusing on political commentary and start commentating on other posters because when you do you stop being a good, contributing poster and become a rude troll :)[/quote]
Yet, you still respond. Now what does that say about your intelligence?
Now run along back to the “why am I still getting pimples at the age of 21” thread.
You don’t belong here anyway boy.
[/quote]
This is just sad. I don’t belong here anyway? LOL.
This is a privately owned forum. You have no say in whether I belong here or not. If I want to keep reading and commenting, there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
[/quote]
I agree, and let me add that I think we need more 20 year old political (and foreign affairs) experts like yourself on this site. We don’t quite have enough yet. In fact, try to get your little brother to start posting I’m sure his insights will be at least as welcome as yours.
Write back soon junior. When you are away for extended periods of time the rest of us are not sure how to think.
Yes, you have that much impact!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I will be honest;
I think that this search for “Conservative Purity” will only lead to a bunch of liars and hypocrites.
People; regardless as to their political philosophy; are flawed and imperfect, Sloth.
Mufasa[/quote]
All men are flawed and imperfect, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aim for better. Aim for something less, and you’ll also get less than that. Soon, you’ll adjust your target even lower. And again, you’ll soon start falling short of even that. Repeat, enough times and you’ll have a few young folks trying to prop up a bunch of elderly divorcees–many with no children of their own. Well, the young folks not in prison or unemployed. Or perhaps working, but consuming as much tax money (if not more) than they produce.[/quote]
I agree we should always aim for better. But as you say men are flawed. So you look for the best of what you have. And then you participate in the process. As avoiding this participation will only get you the worst of what you have.
Saw the latest Florida candidate poll had Romney moving up a bit. Imagine tonights debate in Jacksonville could move the polls one way or another.
“Gingrich Dropping in Florida Polls”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/26/gingrich-florida-polls/
[quote]Menthol wrote:
Saw the latest Florida candidate poll had Romney moving up a bit. Imagine tonights debate in Jacksonville could move the polls one way or another.
“Gingrich Dropping in Florida Polls”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/26/gingrich-florida-polls/[/quote]
In a few polls that I looked at this morning they had Mitt ahead between 3-8 points. I’m not sure why he is now ahead as there has been a crap storm thrown at him because he’s an evil rich guy. There could be a backlash to that, people thinking that it is unfair to pick on him because he’s successful. But I don’t think that’s it. Rather I think the seniors in Fla are tipping the polls after considering Newts prior behavior in his personal relationships.
Obviously that’s just a guess.
To those who say that your personal life doesn’t matter–BULL!
If you will cheat on your wife and break the most sacred vow that you could ever make what’s to stop you from lying to the American people and doing other underhanded things while in power?
Character matters!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Menthol wrote:
Saw the latest Florida candidate poll had Romney moving up a bit. Imagine tonights debate in Jacksonville could move the polls one way or another.
“Gingrich Dropping in Florida Polls”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/26/gingrich-florida-polls/[/quote]
In a few polls that I looked at this morning they had Mitt ahead between 3-8 points. I’m not sure why he is now ahead as there has been a crap storm thrown at him because he’s an evil rich guy. There could be a backlash to that, people thinking that it is unfair to pick on him because he’s successful. But I don’t think that’s it. Rather I think the seniors in Fla are tipping the polls after considering Newts prior behavior in his personal relationships.
Obviously that’s just a guess.
To those who say that your personal life doesn’t matter–BULL!
If you will cheat on your wife and break the most sacred vow that you could ever make what’s to stop you from lying to the American people and doing other underhanded things while in power?
Character matters![/quote]
Mitt’s already lying to us.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If you will cheat on your wife and break the most sacred vow that you could ever make what’s to stop you from lying to the American people and doing other underhanded things while in power?
[/quote]
And what if “you keep your most sacred vow” and lie to the American people anyway?
As far as I know Obama is faithful to his wife and lied anyway.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think the seniors in Fla are tipping the polls after considering Newts prior behavior in his personal relationships.
Obviously that’s just a guess.
[/quote]
It’s the negative ads. Multiple robocalls a day. On top of flyers. On top of the unmatched negative tv/radio blitz. They cut back the destroy-Santorum ads and have stepped up the the destroy-Netw ads. And have you been to Drudge? Or what some grassroots republicans are now calling the Romney opposition research headquarters. National Review has been just as bad. They went to bat for Mitt when it looked like Newt would beat him in Iowa. They slacked off afterwards and got caught by the SC Newt-storm. Now, they’ve ramped it up to over-drive. I doubt it’ll be nearly effective as it was was in Iowa, but with Santorum staying in the race, it’ll most likely be enough.