Remember When CPAC was Actually Conservative?

[del]

Goldwater would've busted a boot up your ass, chump.

Is this the Goldwater you remember?

"Goddamn it, John ... the Republicans are selling their soul to win elections ... Mark my word ... if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem." -- Barry Goldwater as told to John Dean

I'd take 10 of the preachers in exchange for getting shed of one of the Trotskyite neocons, like Chimpola, Gingrich, McWeasel and the rest.

At least I can trust the prigs to be honest about who they are.

you mean like honest jim bakker?

 

[bodecea]

They're still conservative. They are just "focused".

lol, yeah, focused, meaning that they have demonized Obama so much that they have scared themselves into voting for an Obama clone in conservative drag who doesnt have a shred of Obama's honesty and decency.

If conservatives think that Obama is bad, wait till they elect Romney, who is not only to the left of Obama, judging from his record of enabling gay marriage, grabbing guns and using state funds to pay for abortions, but Romney is absolutely ruthless (destroying the reputations of anyone that gets in his way), owned by Wall Street banksters, and is busy as a bee (while he isnt lying to conservatives about how conservative he is) removing Tea Party conservatives from any positions of power int he GOP unless they French kiss his arse with full tongue.

While Obama is recruitng and activating more conservatives to go to the polls than any President since Carter, Romney will destroy any remaining semblance of conservatism within the GOP that it has left since Reagan. They are idiots if they buy Romney's lies and dirty tricks.

And the problem with gay marriage is......?

 

[Paulie]

That’s the Goldwater I remember – he was wrong on a number of issues, but he was consistent, and unlike today’s ‘conservatives,’ an advocate of privacy rights.

Liberoidal dickweeds don't give a flying **** about privacy rights and the 4th Amendment, as evidenced by the origianl 98-1 Senate vote for USAPATRIOT and their continued congressional votes to keep it in place.

Like I said, Goldwater would've kicked your sorry ass into next month.

Was it not republicans who drafted the NDAA and supported it unanimously in congress? Democrats also supported it in high numbers, including the president, but stop acting like republicans didn't play a huge part in destroying our individual liberties.

You obviously need to read more of Oddball's posting history.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I wont be supporting Romney, But unlike you I will not support the current corruption you said you would.

I will vote for Obama only if the GOP nominates someone who is not only NOT qualified to be POTUS, but who I sincerely believe will constitute a grave threat to the continuation of our Republic.

If that is *supporting* the current administration, despite my fairly regular criticisms of it, then we must be speaking two different dialects of English or something.

The definition I am familiar with is this one:
Support
2 a
(1): to promote the interests or cause of
(2): to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate <supports fair play>
(3): to argue or vote for <supported the motion to lower taxes>

At most I am willing to do number 3, and only because I would feel I have no alternative.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They're still conservative. They are just "focused".

lol, yeah, focused, meaning that they have demonized Obama so much that they have scared themselves into voting for an Obama clone in conservative drag who doesnt have a shred of Obama's honesty and decency.

If conservatives think that Obama is bad, wait till they elect Romney, who is not only to the left of Obama, judging from his record of enabling gay marriage, grabbing guns and using state funds to pay for abortions, but Romney is absolutely ruthless (destroying the reputations of anyone that gets in his way), owned by Wall Street banksters, and is busy as a bee (while he isnt lying to conservatives about how conservative he is) removing Tea Party conservatives from any positions of power int he GOP unless they French kiss his arse with full tongue.

While Obama is recruitng and activating more conservatives to go to the polls than any President since Carter, Romney will destroy any remaining semblance of conservatism within the GOP that it has left since Reagan. They are idiots if they buy Romney's lies and dirty tricks.

And the problem with gay marriage is......?

Is that it is an oxymoron, like 'military intelligence'.

What marriage is has nothing to do with anything gay.

 

[Oddball]

lol, yeah, focused, meaning that they have demonized Obama so much that they have scared themselves into voting for an Obama clone in conservative drag who doesnt have a shred of Obama's honesty and decency.

If conservatives think that Obama is bad, wait till they elect Romney, who is not only to the left of Obama, judging from his record of enabling gay marriage, grabbing guns and using state funds to pay for abortions, but Romney is absolutely ruthless (destroying the reputations of anyone that gets in his way), owned by Wall Street banksters, and is busy as a bee (while he isnt lying to conservatives about how conservative he is) removing Tea Party conservatives from any positions of power int he GOP unless they French kiss his arse with full tongue.

While Obama is recruitng and activating more conservatives to go to the polls than any President since Carter, Romney will destroy any remaining semblance of conservatism within the GOP that it has left since Reagan. They are idiots if they buy Romney's lies and dirty tricks.

And the problem with gay marriage is......?

Is that it is an oxymoron, like 'military intelligence'.

What marriage is has nothing to do with anything gay.

Wait a minute...A few months ago it was "same-sex marriage"...As though there are hordes of same-sex hetero couples breaking down the doors of city hall to get marriage licenses.

The twirps can't even keep their own duplicitous semantics straight!

 

[Ava]

I do.

Now they endorse for President a gun-grabbing, abortion paying, Reaganite-bashing liberal from Massachussettes who once ran to the left of Ted Kenedy. Oh, nut wait; he didnt mean any of that, ya know? lol, and conservatards are believing the BS rolling off the liars lips.

One thing that is a constant from one generation to the next: conservatives build an organization, liberals infiltrate it and take it over by one means or another, and then conservatives flee the old organization and build a new one from the ground up.

Guess its past time to scrap/abandon CPAC, leave whats left to the libtards and start something new that is once again truly conservative like they've had to do once every two or three generations.

OWS: &#39;Grass Roots&#39; Occupy Wall Street DC PAID To Protest CPAC - YouTube

 

[Amelia]

I'm glad they didn't endorse the guy who said that being impregnated by a rapist was receiving a gift from God.

Just sayin'

So you are admitting there's nothing morally wrong with abortion?

Not to pick on you personally, because I think you are one of the more pleasent supporters of Mittens, but it is a trick bag for the GOP and it's pro-life position.

If you say it's okay to abort a healthy because it was conceived through rape, then how is it not okay to abort one that was conceived as the result of a one-night stand in a bar?

If you take the position that fetuses are human life and should be protected, then they should all be protected.

Mittens is pro-life this week, isn't he?

I am not of the opinion that abortion is murder. That is not to say it is morally right in most circumstances.

I personally can't see how someone could bring themselves to abort a child once it was at the stage of being able to feel pain, unless there was a pressing medical need such as saving the life of the mother, of course. I personally believe that abortion in response to the sin of casual sex is irresponsible and another grave sin.

However, I want abortion to stay legal. I don't want hurdles set up which would cause someone who needs an abortion to have the procedure delayed or made essentially impossible to get. I know the way people in power can be - if abortion law left the slightest opening for it there are people who would use the law as a way to put women through as much distress as possible if they sought an abortion.

A law which would identify even an embryo as a person would have severe and regrettable ramifications.



My point of view on abortion is similar to what I've heard described as a typical stand taken by Jewish groups.

 

[paulitician]

Yeah, what a bunch of sell-outs. Romney winning the CPAC Straw-Poll is such a sad rig-job. How could any real Conservative vote for Romney in that Poll? The Republican Party is a real mess. It should be a Landslide for Obama in November. The Neocon Globalist assholes have completely destroyed the Party. So now we'll get four more years of Socialist/Progressive Hell. Thanks a lot Republicans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You far right wacks are not conservatives and Reagan would repudiate you if you were alive, JimBowie.

No true Republican wants anything from you but a vote and a promise you will shut your moufs.

Well, and here we have Jake Starkey, probably the stupidest man participating on these boards, chiming in with two unwarranted assertions loaded with ad hominem, and thinks he is making a cogent argument.

lol, go sober up Jake.

You guys are the masters of personal assassination and ad hom attacks, then you shreik like little girls on the play ground getting pelted with mud in return!

Reagan, friend of gays and lesbians, mild on abortion, raised the debt ceiling 19 times, raised taxes 3 times, cozied up to the Soviet leaders.

You butts would have shreiked even louder.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm glad they didn't endorse the guy who said that being impregnated by a rapist was receiving a gift from God.

Just sayin'

So you are admitting there's nothing morally wrong with abortion?

Not to pick on you personally, because I think you are one of the more pleasent supporters of Mittens, but it is a trick bag for the GOP and it's pro-life position.

If you say it's okay to abort a healthy because it was conceived through rape, then how is it not okay to abort one that was conceived as the result of a one-night stand in a bar?

If you take the position that fetuses are human life and should be protected, then they should all be protected.

Mittens is pro-life this week, isn't he?

I am not of the opinion that abortion is murder. That is not to say it is morally right in most circumstances.

I personally can't see how someone could bring themselves to abort a child once it was at the stage of being able to feel pain, unless there was a pressing medical need such as saving the life of the mother, of course. I personally believe that abortion in response to the sin of casual sex is irresponsible and another grave sin.

However, I want abortion to stay legal. I don't want hurdles set up which would cause someone who needs an abortion to have the procedure delayed or made essentially impossible to get. I know the way people in power can be - if abortion law left the slightest opening for it there are people who would use the law as a way to put women through as much distress as possible if they sought an abortion.

A law which would identify even an embryo as a person would have severe and regrettable ramifications.



My point of view on abortion is similar to what I've heard described as a typical stand taken by Jewish groups.

That's a very detailed answer, but it kind of dodges the question.

If a fetus doesn't become a person until the umbilical chord is cut, then why would abortion ever be wrong?

If a fetus is a person from the moment of conception, it always is.

Now, as a pure, pragmatic matter, abortion should be legal because honestly, a desperate enough woman will find a way to mess herself up. So my problem with abortion is not a moral one, but a pragmatic one.

I also think prostitution should be legalized not because I would want to see anyone be a prostitute, but because as a practical matter, some people are and legallizing it would offer them protections. Certainly better then ending up in multiple trash bags because someone answered the wrong "Craig's List" ad.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, what a bunch of sell-outs. Romney winning the CPAC Straw-Poll is such a sad rig-job. How could any real Conservative vote for Romney in that Poll? The Republican Party is a real mess. It should be a Landslide for Obama in November. The Neocon Globalist assholes have completely destroyed the Party. So now we'll get four more years of Socialist/Progressive Hell. Thanks a lot Republicans.

That was probably the saddest part of the whole operation. Romney spent a huge amount of money paying people to show up at CPAC, because if Santorum won that, people would be writing his obituary.

Now Santorum has pulled ahead in the RCP Average AND polls show him leading in Michigan.

I still think Romney will be the nominee, but man, what a weak, awful nominee he is. Probably the weakest of my lifetime.

 

[Amelia]

So you are admitting there's nothing morally wrong with abortion?

Not to pick on you personally, because I think you are one of the more pleasent supporters of Mittens, but it is a trick bag for the GOP and it's pro-life position.

If you say it's okay to abort a healthy because it was conceived through rape, then how is it not okay to abort one that was conceived as the result of a one-night stand in a bar?

If you take the position that fetuses are human life and should be protected, then they should all be protected.

Mittens is pro-life this week, isn't he?

I am not of the opinion that abortion is murder. That is not to say it is morally right in most circumstances.

I personally can't see how someone could bring themselves to abort a child once it was at the stage of being able to feel pain, unless there was a pressing medical need such as saving the life of the mother, of course. I personally believe that abortion in response to the sin of casual sex is irresponsible and another grave sin.

However, I want abortion to stay legal. I don't want hurdles set up which would cause someone who needs an abortion to have the procedure delayed or made essentially impossible to get. I know the way people in power can be - if abortion law left the slightest opening for it there are people who would use the law as a way to put women through as much distress as possible if they sought an abortion.

A law which would identify even an embryo as a person would have severe and regrettable ramifications.



My point of view on abortion is similar to what I've heard described as a typical stand taken by Jewish groups.

That's a very detailed answer, but it kind of dodges the question.

If a fetus doesn't become a person until the umbilical chord is cut, then why would abortion ever be wrong?

If a fetus is a person from the moment of conception, it always is.

Now, as a pure, pragmatic matter, abortion should be legal because honestly, a desperate enough woman will find a way to mess herself up. So my problem with abortion is not a moral one, but a pragmatic one.

I also think prostitution should be legalized not because I would want to see anyone be a prostitute, but because as a practical matter, some people are and legallizing it would offer them protections. Certainly better then ending up in multiple trash bags because someone answered the wrong "Craig's List" ad.

It doesn't have to be murder to be wrong. I believe that premarital sex is wrong. And not taking responsibility for the results of one's wrong choices is wrong. But if the pregnancy was not the result of the mother's wrong choices then abortion is not failing to take responsibility so it wouldn't necessarily be wrong on those grounds.

But I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on someone else. And that's a luxury I can afford since I don't believe abortion to be murder. (If I did believe it to be murder then I would probably feel obligated to fight to get it legally recognized as murder.)



I'm not happy with people shredding or poisoning or otherwise causing pain to the tiny body once it has reached the point where it can feel pain, but as a general and practical guide it makes good sense to me to use fetal viability to help draw the line of when the fetus starts to have its own claim to protections under the law.

 

[JoeB131]

It doesn't have to be murder to be wrong. I believe that premarital sex is wrong. And not taking responsibility for the results of one's wrong choices is wrong. But if the pregnancy was not the result of the mother's wrong choices then abortion is not failing to take responsibility so it wouldn't necessarily be wrong on those grounds.

But then why is pre-marital sex wrong?

Maybe this is th atheist point of view, but I see right and wrong not based on a book of rules written 3000 years ago, where we ignore most of those rules, anyway, but on a more pragmatic view.

Something is right or wrong if it harms another person. The fundemental question here is a fetus a person, not whether it feels pain or not. (which, by the way, is a matter of debate when a fetus actually can feel pain.)

But I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on someone else. And that's a luxury I can afford since I don't believe abortion to be murder. (If I did believe it to be murder then I would probably feel obligated to fight to get it legally recognized as murder.)

I'm not happy with people shredding or poisoning or otherwise causing pain to the tiny body once it has reached the point where it can feel pain, but as a general and practical guide it makes good sense to me to use fetal viability to help draw the line of when the fetus starts to have its own claim to protections under the law.

But those laws are not well written, which is why this is up for debate, I think.

Now, Santorum, good guy. I think his view is wrong on this, but he strikes me as sincere and not checking with a focus group to see what the best answer is.

 

[Dr Grump]

Scratching my head as to why the OP isn't in the Conspiracy Theory folder....

 

[del]

Scratching my head as to why the OP isn't in the Conspiracy Theory folder....

doesn't meet the intelligence threshold

 

[Amelia]

It doesn't have to be murder to be wrong. I believe that premarital sex is wrong. And not taking responsibility for the results of one's wrong choices is wrong. But if the pregnancy was not the result of the mother's wrong choices then abortion is not failing to take responsibility so it wouldn't necessarily be wrong on those grounds.

But then why is pre-marital sex wrong?

Maybe this is th atheist point of view, but I see right and wrong not based on a book of rules written 3000 years ago, where we ignore most of those rules, anyway, but on a more pragmatic view.

Something is right or wrong if it harms another person. The fundemental question here is a fetus a person, not whether it feels pain or not. (which, by the way, is a matter of debate when a fetus actually can feel pain.)

But I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on someone else. And that's a luxury I can afford since I don't believe abortion to be murder. (If I did believe it to be murder then I would probably feel obligated to fight to get it legally recognized as murder.)

I'm not happy with people shredding or poisoning or otherwise causing pain to the tiny body once it has reached the point where it can feel pain, but as a general and practical guide it makes good sense to me to use fetal viability to help draw the line of when the fetus starts to have its own claim to protections under the law.

But those laws are not well written, which is why this is up for debate, I think.

Now, Santorum, good guy. I think his view is wrong on this, but he strikes me as sincere and not checking with a focus group to see what the best answer is.

So we differ on what is right and wrong. Or we differ on how harm is measured. From a non-athiest point of view, I believe that it is wrong to harm oneself. Making bad choices is harming oneself. Not taking responsibility is harming oneself. That ripples through your life, through the lives of those you contact and possibly through eternity.

I don't know when the fetus becomes a person, but I don't believe that terminating the fetus deprives any soul of a chance at life or deprives God of any of His children.

So again, I have the luxury of believing that while abortion is wrong in some cases for reasons apart from "harm to a baby person", it is not wrong in all cases, and does not rise to such a level of wrongness that it needs to be legislated against.







Not every sincere person should be president.

Truthmatters for instance - very sincere - not presidential material.





I would prefer a president who did not give high priority to changing our abortion laws.

 

[whitehall]

Yeah, yeah, yeah the pretend republicans said the Tea Party was too conservative and now they say Romney (who isn't even the candidate yet) is too liberal. Alinsky lives. Well, all I can say is ANYBODY BUT BARRY HUSSEIN.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You far right wacks are not conservatives and Reagan would repudiate you if you were alive, JimBowie.

No true Republican wants anything from you but a vote and a promise you will shut your moufs.

Well, and here we have Jake Starkey, probably the stupidest man participating on these boards, chiming in with two unwarranted assertions loaded with ad hominem, and thinks he is making a cogent argument.

lol, go sober up Jake.

You guys are the masters of personal assassination and ad hom attacks, then you shreik like little girls on the play ground getting pelted with mud in return!

I am not complaining about your stupid insults, *****, but the fact that you think that tossing out a post with nothing but insults is somehow persuasive argument.

Again, comprehension fail for the El Stupido Uno.

Reagan, friend of gays and lesbians, mild on abortion, raised the debt ceiling 19 times, raised taxes 3 times, cozied up to the Soviet leaders.

Lol, Reagan had gay friends, big deal, so do I. That does not mean he would support gay sodomarriage. He raised the cost of the Cold War to the point that the Soviets caved, and raised taxes only in desperation because the Democrat majority sent him feaking large bills of thousands upon thousands of pages long for him to sign or veto.

Again, your inability to fathom the simplest facts speaks loudly to the fact that you are a moron.

You butts would have shreiked even louder.

Heh, you are so obsessed with butts, lololol.

 

[geauxtohell]

I do.

Now they endorse for President a gun-grabbing, abortion paying, Reaganite-bashing liberal from Massachussettes who once ran to the left of Ted Kenedy. Oh, nut wait; he didnt mean any of that, ya know? lol, and conservatards are believing the BS rolling off the liars lips.

One thing that is a constant from one generation to the next: conservatives build an organization, liberals infiltrate it and take it over by one means or another, and then conservatives flee the old organization and build a new one from the ground up.

Guess its past time to scrap/abandon CPAC, leave whats left to the libtards and start something new that is once again truly conservative like they've had to do once every two or three generations.

You guys did this to yourselves. Don't blame us for your **** ups. Enjoy your inevitable candidate: Mitt "Eddie Haskell" Romney.

Personal responsibility.