"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[Dante]

Cruz and Paul are the cream of the crop! Since I live in the North Korea of the Midwest, I get the privilege to vote for who I want to vote for. If Cruz or Paul are not the candidate I am doing a write in!

Paul is VERY similar to Reagan, and the leftists are treating him the same.

USMB leftists like to float the fiction that the dims were supportive of Reagan - in fact they treated him the way they treat Sarah Palin. I give BlindFool shit for being a Communist, but at least he's honest about his seething hatred of Reagan.

The American left was on the brink of realizing all of their dreams in 1979. The USSR had established an satellite nation in the North American Continent. Soviet and Cuban troops marching through Honduras, Guatemala, then Mexico, to sit on our unprotected Southern Border was something 5th column boys like Jim Wright and BlindFool were certain would happen by 85. And it would have, except Reagan. The hatred of the left was beyond anything, Reagan destroyed not only the plan to bring Communism home, but in defeating the Soviets in Nicaragua, he caused the whole house of cards to fall. Reagan ruined everything for them.

George Will

When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WY—see 1983), rebel. Cheney says: “Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.”

Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: “Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.”

Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a “suicide pact.” Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan “wildly wrong” in his dealings with the Soviets.

Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call “summit fever,” accusing Reagan of “appeasement” both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagan’s “cutting deals with the evil empire” (see March 8, 1983). They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.​

 

[Dante]

No Rand Paul is more like Reagan's far right conservative critics than he is like Reagan

 

[Liminal]

I wouldn't argue with those definitions. The problem is that so many so called conservatives think they can define everyone else's politics; and somehow, everyone who doesn't agree with them ends up being defined as liberal. That sounds a lot like an ideologically driven response to me.

Can a Conservative also be an ideologue? Yes, of course! But that isn't what Conservative philosophy is about or should be about. Perhaps this is a problem with the Republicans and the right, not being able to distinguish what Conservatism really means. Again-- lack of a voice.

Think of it like this, a social conservative ideologue and a libertarian ideologue do not see eye-to-eye on a whole host of social issues... we can run the gamut... pot, gay marriage, abortion, etc. But they can both be very much Conservatives and believe in a conservative philosophy. So we see there is a big difference between an ideology and a philosophy here, they are not one in the same. Conservatism is not an ideology, it is a philosophy. When successfully articulated as such, it is wildly popular and wins elections in landslides.

It must be very liberating for you to have a philosophy that allows you the latitude to define everyone else as being ideologically motivated. But I'm still not seeing how your philosophy is any different from ideology, it behaves the same way, displays many of the same attributes.

Well I just explained it to you as best as it can be explained. I even gave you and example of how two Conservatives can have completely different views on ideological issues. Don't know how much clearer it can be made, to be honest. If you don't want to see it or you are committed to not comprehending it, I can't help that.

Now, I never did claim that everyone else is ideologically motivated. That's nowhere in my comments. Conservatism isn't ideologically motivated because it doesn't adhere to an ideology. It is a philosophy. When we hear the term "far right" it simply means a conservative. When we hear "moderate" it means someone who isn't a conservative.

Moderate, Conservative, Liberal....does everyone have to be defined into these categories? Suppose your views are conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and undecided or unconcerned about some other issues. How does your philosophy define those people?

 

[bendog]

No Rand Paul is more like Reagan's far right conservative critics than he is like Reagan

They flip flopped less, though in the end I think they came to see their misjudgment of Reagan and the Soviet Bear.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO!

D E L U S I O N on PARADE.

The Tea party took the majority of the seats gained by the GOP in 2014.

And it was obama's abuse if his executive power which precluded the means of the Tea Party to organize which rests as the basis of that addled pew poll.

ROFLMNAO!

You cannot make this crap up!

If democrats and their media cannot convince the GOP that "moderates" are the key to victory, then the GOP will not nominate Jeb Bush. If the GOP does not nominate Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton will lose the general election. It is CRITICAL for democrats to promote the absurd fiction that voters prefer mealy-mouthed leftist wannabes.

Buddy... The media is going to do what it always does. We need to come to grips with the fact that the US no longer possesses a free press. 'The Media' has been an arm of the Left for the last 70 years and unapologetically so for the last 50.

I don't think the media is going to be able to get past that fact anymore as Americans simply no longer listen to them. The idiots of course DO... But the idiots aren't going to choose the GOP candidate this time around.

The GOP elite dam' well knows that if they try to push another Moderate... They're toast.

So it will come down to an American. Probably Cruz. Not my favorite ... For all the reasons I've already stated. But I'll vote for a Cruz... I'll vote for a Rubio, or a Carson... I will not vote for a Bush or a Romney or a McCain

 

[nodoginnafight]

I wouldn't argue with those definitions. The problem is that so many so called conservatives think they can define everyone else's politics; and somehow, everyone who doesn't agree with them ends up being defined as liberal. That sounds a lot like an ideologically driven response to me.

Can a Conservative also be an ideologue? Yes, of course! But that isn't what Conservative philosophy is about or should be about. Perhaps this is a problem with the Republicans and the right, not being able to distinguish what Conservatism really means. Again-- lack of a voice.

Think of it like this, a social conservative ideologue and a libertarian ideologue do not see eye-to-eye on a whole host of social issues... we can run the gamut... pot, gay marriage, abortion, etc. But they can both be very much Conservatives and believe in a conservative philosophy. So we see there is a big difference between an ideology and a philosophy here, they are not one in the same. Conservatism is not an ideology, it is a philosophy. When successfully articulated as such, it is wildly popular and wins elections in landslides.

It must be very liberating for you to have a philosophy that allows you the latitude to define everyone else as being ideologically motivated. But I'm still not seeing how your philosophy is any different from ideology, it behaves the same way, displays many of the same attributes.

Well I just explained it to you as best as it can be explained. I even gave you and example of how two Conservatives can have completely different views on ideological issues. Don't know how much clearer it can be made, to be honest. If you don't want to see it or you are committed to not comprehending it, I can't help that.

Now, I never did claim that everyone else is ideologically motivated. That's nowhere in my comments. Conservatism isn't ideologically motivated because it doesn't adhere to an ideology. It is a philosophy. When we hear the term "far right" it simply means a conservative. When we hear "moderate" it means someone who isn't a conservative.

Moderate, Conservative, Liberal....does everyone have to be defined into these categories? Suppose your views are conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and undecided or unconcerned about some other issues. How does your philosophy define those people?

Most Americans

 

[Liminal]

ROFLMNAO!

D E L U S I O N on PARADE.

The Tea party took the majority of the seats gained by the GOP in 2014.

And it was obama's abuse if his executive power which precluded the means of the Tea Party to organize which rests as the basis of that addled pew poll.

ROFLMNAO!

You cannot make this crap up!

If democrats and their media cannot convince the GOP that "moderates" are the key to victory, then the GOP will not nominate Jeb Bush. If the GOP does not nominate Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton will lose the general election. It is CRITICAL for democrats to promote the absurd fiction that voters prefer mealy-mouthed leftist wannabes.

Buddy... The media is going to do what it always does. We need to come to grips with the fact that the US no longer possesses a free press. 'The Media' has been an arm of the Left for the last 70 years and unapologetically so for the last 50.

I don't think the media is going to be able to get past that fact anymore as Americans simply no longer listen to them. The idiots of course DO... But the idiots aren't going to choose the GOP candidate this time around.

The GOP elite dam' well knows that if they try to push another Moderate... They're toast.

So it will come down to an American. Probably Cruz. Not my favorite ... For all the reasons I've already stated. But I'll vote for a Cruz... I'll vote for a Rubio, or a Carson... I will not vote for a Bush or a Romney or a McCain

Good thing FOX News isn't part of the news media.

 

[nodoginnafight]

ROFLMNAO!

D E L U S I O N on PARADE.

The Tea party took the majority of the seats gained by the GOP in 2014.

And it was obama's abuse if his executive power which precluded the means of the Tea Party to organize which rests as the basis of that addled pew poll.

ROFLMNAO!

You cannot make this crap up!

If democrats and their media cannot convince the GOP that "moderates" are the key to victory, then the GOP will not nominate Jeb Bush. If the GOP does not nominate Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton will lose the general election. It is CRITICAL for democrats to promote the absurd fiction that voters prefer mealy-mouthed leftist wannabes.

Buddy... The media is going to do what it always does. We need to come to grips with the fact that the US no longer possesses a free press. 'The Media' has been an arm of the Left for the last 70 years and unapologetically so for the last 50.

I don't think the media is going to be able to get past that fact anymore as Americans simply no longer listen to them. The idiots of course DO... But the idiots aren't going to choose the GOP candidate this time around.

The GOP elite dam' well knows that if they try to push another Moderate... They're toast.

So it will come down to an American. Probably Cruz. Not my favorite ... For all the reasons I've already stated. But I'll vote for a Cruz... I'll vote for a Rubio, or a Carson... I will not vote for a Bush or a Romney or a McCain

It's the MMMEEEEEEEEDDDDDIIIIIAAAAA

LOL

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I wouldn't argue with those definitions. The problem is that so many so called conservatives think they can define everyone else's politics; and somehow, everyone who doesn't agree with them ends up being defined as liberal. That sounds a lot like an ideologically driven response to me.

Can a Conservative also be an ideologue? Yes, of course! But that isn't what Conservative philosophy is about or should be about. Perhaps this is a problem with the Republicans and the right, not being able to distinguish what Conservatism really means. Again-- lack of a voice.

Think of it like this, a social conservative ideologue and a libertarian ideologue do not see eye-to-eye on a whole host of social issues... we can run the gamut... pot, gay marriage, abortion, etc. But they can both be very much Conservatives and believe in a conservative philosophy. So we see there is a big difference between an ideology and a philosophy here, they are not one in the same. Conservatism is not an ideology, it is a philosophy. When successfully articulated as such, it is wildly popular and wins elections in landslides.

It must be very liberating for you to have a philosophy that allows you the latitude to define everyone else as being ideologically motivated. But I'm still not seeing how your philosophy is any different from ideology, it behaves the same way, displays many of the same attributes.

Well I just explained it to you as best as it can be explained. I even gave you and example of how two Conservatives can have completely different views on ideological issues. Don't know how much clearer it can be made, to be honest. If you don't want to see it or you are committed to not comprehending it, I can't help that.

Now, I never did claim that everyone else is ideologically motivated. That's nowhere in my comments. Conservatism isn't ideologically motivated because it doesn't adhere to an ideology. It is a philosophy. When we hear the term "far right" it simply means a conservative. When we hear "moderate" it means someone who isn't a conservative.

Moderate, Conservative, Liberal....does everyone have to be defined into these categories? Suppose your views are conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and undecided or unconcerned about some other issues. How does your philosophy define those people?

There's no such thing as a moderate.

 

[Boss]

I wouldn't argue with those definitions. The problem is that so many so called conservatives think they can define everyone else's politics; and somehow, everyone who doesn't agree with them ends up being defined as liberal. That sounds a lot like an ideologically driven response to me.

Can a Conservative also be an ideologue? Yes, of course! But that isn't what Conservative philosophy is about or should be about. Perhaps this is a problem with the Republicans and the right, not being able to distinguish what Conservatism really means. Again-- lack of a voice.

Think of it like this, a social conservative ideologue and a libertarian ideologue do not see eye-to-eye on a whole host of social issues... we can run the gamut... pot, gay marriage, abortion, etc. But they can both be very much Conservatives and believe in a conservative philosophy. So we see there is a big difference between an ideology and a philosophy here, they are not one in the same. Conservatism is not an ideology, it is a philosophy. When successfully articulated as such, it is wildly popular and wins elections in landslides.

It must be very liberating for you to have a philosophy that allows you the latitude to define everyone else as being ideologically motivated. But I'm still not seeing how your philosophy is any different from ideology, it behaves the same way, displays many of the same attributes.

Well I just explained it to you as best as it can be explained. I even gave you and example of how two Conservatives can have completely different views on ideological issues. Don't know how much clearer it can be made, to be honest. If you don't want to see it or you are committed to not comprehending it, I can't help that.

Now, I never did claim that everyone else is ideologically motivated. That's nowhere in my comments. Conservatism isn't ideologically motivated because it doesn't adhere to an ideology. It is a philosophy. When we hear the term "far right" it simply means a conservative. When we hear "moderate" it means someone who isn't a conservative.

Moderate, Conservative, Liberal....does everyone have to be defined into these categories? Suppose your views are conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and undecided or unconcerned about some other issues. How does your philosophy define those people?

You are still thinking in terms of all three being the same thing... ideology! They are NOT the same thing. You can be a Conservative and still have very liberal social viewpoints rooted in Conservative philosophy. In fact, most pragmatic conservatives are very much "moderate" in their social views with more of a libertarian lean than anything.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO!

D E L U S I O N on PARADE.

The Tea party took the majority of the seats gained by the GOP in 2014.

And it was obama's abuse if his executive power which precluded the means of the Tea Party to organize which rests as the basis of that addled pew poll.

ROFLMNAO!

You cannot make this crap up!

If democrats and their media cannot convince the GOP that "moderates" are the key to victory, then the GOP will not nominate Jeb Bush. If the GOP does not nominate Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton will lose the general election. It is CRITICAL for democrats to promote the absurd fiction that voters prefer mealy-mouthed leftist wannabes.

Buddy... The media is going to do what it always does. We need to come to grips with the fact that the US no longer possesses a free press. 'The Media' has been an arm of the Left for the last 70 years and unapologetically so for the last 50.

I don't think the media is going to be able to get past that fact anymore as Americans simply no longer listen to them. The idiots of course DO... But the idiots aren't going to choose the GOP candidate this time around.

The GOP elite dam' well knows that if they try to push another Moderate... They're toast.

So it will come down to an American. Probably Cruz. Not my favorite ... For all the reasons I've already stated. But I'll vote for a Cruz... I'll vote for a Rubio, or a Carson... I will not vote for a Bush or a Romney or a McCain

Good thing FOX News isn't part of the news media.

LOL! Fox News is one cable channel which is central to the Britishization of the US.

That you think it's American only exposes your own lack of kinship with America.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is quite literally, no such thing an 'extreme right wing'.

Would you say there is such a thing as an "extreme left wing"?

.

No.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Buddy... The media is going to do what it always does. We need to come to grips with the fact that the US no longer possesses a free press. 'The Media' has been an arm of the Left for the last 70 years and unapologetically so for the last 50.

I don't think the media is going to be able to get past that fact anymore as Americans simply no longer listen to them. The idiots of course DO... But the idiots aren't going to choose the GOP candidate this time around.

The GOP elite dam' well knows that if they try to push another Moderate... They're toast.

So it will come down to an American. Probably Cruz. Not my favorite ... For all the reasons I've already stated. But I'll vote for a Cruz... I'll vote for a Rubio, or a Carson... I will not vote for a Bush or a Romney or a McCain

My prediction is Scott Walker. I would prefer Rand Paul, but would vote for Walker.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No Rand Paul is more like Reagan's far right conservative critics than he is like Reagan

Ah yes, the democrat claim that we have always been at war with Eastasia...

Those who were alive at the time know your big lie is a bunch of shit.

Oh, and it's precious how you try and cast Cheney as "conservative."

 

[Dante]

Buddy... The media is going to do what it always does. We need to come to grips with the fact that the US no longer possesses a free press. 'The Media' has been an arm of the Left for the last 70 years and unapologetically so for the last 50.

I don't think the media is going to be able to get past that fact anymore as Americans simply no longer listen to them. The idiots of course DO... But the idiots aren't going to choose the GOP candidate this time around.

The GOP elite dam' well knows that if they try to push another Moderate... They're toast.

So it will come down to an American. Probably Cruz. Not my favorite ... For all the reasons I've already stated. But I'll vote for a Cruz... I'll vote for a Rubio, or a Carson... I will not vote for a Bush or a Romney or a McCain

My prediction is Scott Walker. I would prefer Rand Paul, but would vote for Walker.

keeper post as unsensible is always making terrible predictions such as Romney 2012

 

[Liminal]

I wouldn't argue with those definitions. The problem is that so many so called conservatives think they can define everyone else's politics; and somehow, everyone who doesn't agree with them ends up being defined as liberal. That sounds a lot like an ideologically driven response to me.

Can a Conservative also be an ideologue? Yes, of course! But that isn't what Conservative philosophy is about or should be about. Perhaps this is a problem with the Republicans and the right, not being able to distinguish what Conservatism really means. Again-- lack of a voice.

Think of it like this, a social conservative ideologue and a libertarian ideologue do not see eye-to-eye on a whole host of social issues... we can run the gamut... pot, gay marriage, abortion, etc. But they can both be very much Conservatives and believe in a conservative philosophy. So we see there is a big difference between an ideology and a philosophy here, they are not one in the same. Conservatism is not an ideology, it is a philosophy. When successfully articulated as such, it is wildly popular and wins elections in landslides.

It must be very liberating for you to have a philosophy that allows you the latitude to define everyone else as being ideologically motivated. But I'm still not seeing how your philosophy is any different from ideology, it behaves the same way, displays many of the same attributes.

Well I just explained it to you as best as it can be explained. I even gave you and example of how two Conservatives can have completely different views on ideological issues. Don't know how much clearer it can be made, to be honest. If you don't want to see it or you are committed to not comprehending it, I can't help that.

Now, I never did claim that everyone else is ideologically motivated. That's nowhere in my comments. Conservatism isn't ideologically motivated because it doesn't adhere to an ideology. It is a philosophy. When we hear the term "far right" it simply means a conservative. When we hear "moderate" it means someone who isn't a conservative.

Moderate, Conservative, Liberal....does everyone have to be defined into these categories? Suppose your views are conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and undecided or unconcerned about some other issues. How does your philosophy define those people?

You are still thinking in terms of all three being the same thing... ideology! They are NOT the same thing. You can be a Conservative and still have very liberal social viewpoints rooted in Conservative philosophy. In fact, most pragmatic conservatives are very much "moderate" in their social views with more of a libertarian lean than anything.

Liberal social viewpoints rooted in conservative philosophy. Do you have any examples?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Liberal social viewpoints rooted in conservative philosophy. Do you have any examples?

Legalized Marijuana.

 

[Liminal]

Liberal social viewpoints rooted in conservative philosophy. Do you have any examples?

Legalized Marijuana.

Only recently and only Rand Paul.

 

[Dante]

Can a Conservative also be an ideologue? Yes, of course! But that isn't what Conservative philosophy is about or should be about. Perhaps this is a problem with the Republicans and the right, not being able to distinguish what Conservatism really means. Again-- lack of a voice.

Think of it like this, a social conservative ideologue and a libertarian ideologue do not see eye-to-eye on a whole host of social issues... we can run the gamut... pot, gay marriage, abortion, etc. But they can both be very much Conservatives and believe in a conservative philosophy. So we see there is a big difference between an ideology and a philosophy here, they are not one in the same. Conservatism is not an ideology, it is a philosophy. When successfully articulated as such, it is wildly popular and wins elections in landslides.

It must be very liberating for you to have a philosophy that allows you the latitude to define everyone else as being ideologically motivated. But I'm still not seeing how your philosophy is any different from ideology, it behaves the same way, displays many of the same attributes.

Well I just explained it to you as best as it can be explained. I even gave you and example of how two Conservatives can have completely different views on ideological issues. Don't know how much clearer it can be made, to be honest. If you don't want to see it or you are committed to not comprehending it, I can't help that.

Now, I never did claim that everyone else is ideologically motivated. That's nowhere in my comments. Conservatism isn't ideologically motivated because it doesn't adhere to an ideology. It is a philosophy. When we hear the term "far right" it simply means a conservative. When we hear "moderate" it means someone who isn't a conservative.

Moderate, Conservative, Liberal....does everyone have to be defined into these categories? Suppose your views are conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and undecided or unconcerned about some other issues. How does your philosophy define those people?

You are still thinking in terms of all three being the same thing... ideology! They are NOT the same thing. You can be a Conservative and still have very liberal social viewpoints rooted in Conservative philosophy. In fact, most pragmatic conservatives are very much "moderate" in their social views with more of a libertarian lean than anything.

Liberal social viewpoints rooted in conservative philosophy. Do you have any examples?

actually the wingnut has it backwards.

Conservative viewpoints in America and western democracies come out of liberal philosophy.

that is a fact

 

[thereisnospoon]

Who is your "solid conservative" for 2016?

A "Reagan" wouldn't win the 2016 GOP primary.

That's what you believe....So what.