Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Hey conservatives.Follow

#1 Feb 23 2010 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
*****
18,463 posts
Apparently ex-presidential candidate and current old bag Senator from AZ John McCain is facing a challenge to his seat by career asshat, sportscaster and sometime congressman J.D. Hayworth. Hayworth, a douche of the highest order, charges McCain with ditching his conservative values and libbing it up post-election.

Now, I know most of you had to have supported him as a potential commander-in-chief. What's your opinion on this turn of events for the man who (at least until the next presidential nominee is named) is the de facto head of your party? Justified?

Edited, Feb 23rd 2010 11:58am by Atomicflea
#2 Feb 23 2010 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
**
559 posts
I'm a conservative, Republicans are not. There is no longer a conservative party in this country.

McCain flip-flops more than an IHOP cook.

#3 Feb 23 2010 at 12:19 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Okay, not challenging your assessment but this has always bothered me.

What is a flip-flop? In particular, how can you tell whether someone has flip-flopped as opposed to, say, learned new information and legitimately modified their opinion as a result?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#4 Feb 23 2010 at 12:24 PM Rating: Decent
*****
12,049 posts
soulshaver wrote:
I'm a conservative, Republicans are not. There is no longer a conservative party in this country.


What about the libertarians? And the Republicans are incredibly conservative as a party; just not fiscally. They're a socially conservative party without a doubt.
#5 Feb 23 2010 at 12:24 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Samira wrote:
What is a flip-flop? In particular, how can you tell whether someone has flip-flopped as opposed to, say, learned new information and legitimately modified their opinion as a result?


A flip-flop is what happens when the other party wants to insult someone who has learned new information and changed their opinion :)
#6 Feb 23 2010 at 12:46 PM Rating: Decent
*****
18,463 posts
soulshaver wrote:
I'm a conservative, Republicans are not. There is no longer a conservative party in this country.
Did you vote during the last election? The one before that? Do you feel you and your party have to coincide on every issue? I didn't agree with every position held by Obama or Clinton, but I agreed with them more than McCain, for example.
#7 Feb 23 2010 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
**
559 posts
Quote:
In particular, how can you tell whether someone has flip-flopped as opposed to, say, learned new information and legitimately modified their opinion as a result?


It may be difficult to determine because we don't have insight into their understanding, but most of the issues that fall within the scope of the political spectrum in the US aren't really hinging on "new information," its just the same emotional drama re-hashed over and over again.

Flip-flopping is a term used to describe someone who changes their political position in order to placate to a certain voting bloc, usually right around election time (like when Obama and Clinton went to Ohio and attacked NAFTA.)

There are so many examples with McCain that I wouldn't feel right just listing a few.

Quote:
They're a socially conservative party without a doubt.


I object to the labeling terms used here. Conservatism stands for a smaller government and reduced governmental interference in the private lives of citizens. Almost all of the so-called "socially conservative" positions call for larger government and increased interference in the private lives of citizens. This is quiet the opposite of being "conservative."

I think what they mean here is not conservative but conventional (i.e. old and Christian.)

Quote:
Did you vote during the last election? The one before that? Do you feel you and your party have to coincide on every issue? I didn't agree with every position held by Obama or Clinton, but I agreed with them more than McCain, for example.


Typically I will vote third party and did in many instances last election. Libertarians are alright but neglect domestic social issues and aren't involved enough with foreign aid. I like the Green Party more (it's not a marijuana or environmentally-based party.) The problem with these parties is that they produce terrible candidates that not even the party supporters want to vote for.

Lets face it, there are no more fiscal conservatives. If the choice is between someone who will waste money on domestic issues such as healthcare compared to someone who will waste money on foreign wars and corruption, the choice is fairly easy. I voted Obama. I'm actually pretty happy with what Obama says, but its dissapointing to see the Senate prevent any progress from being made. Why do we have a Senate again? Oh yah, its easier to bribe 100 people than 400+.

McCain also painted himself as that senile crazy old guy who sometimes said inappropriate things but didn't really understand much of what was going on during the election. Watching Palin flounder during the interviews and the debate was mildly amusing but potentially horrifying as well.
#8 Feb 23 2010 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
It may be difficult to determine because we don't have insight into their understanding, but most of the issues that fall within the scope of the political spectrum in the US aren't really hinging on "new information," its just the same emotional drama re-hashed over and over again.


I'm not sure I agree with your analysis - in fact I'm sure I don't - but thank you for answering.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#9 Feb 23 2010 at 4:41 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
It sounds like you might be fiscally conservative but maybe socially liberal. If that's the case, I'm not sure there is a party to represent you.
#10 Feb 23 2010 at 5:12 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
What is a flip-flop? In particular, how can you tell whether someone has flip-flopped as opposed to, say, learned new information and legitimately modified their opinion as a result?

In McCain's case, there was a good handful of issues where he switched from a moderate to a more party-line stance once the election got underway. Immigration, upper-class tax cuts, off-shore drilling, torture, etc all saw definite pivots between 2007 McCain and 2008 McCain. Maybe he "saw the light" on every issue and suddenly adopted a stronger GOP stance but it would certainly seem that he was changing positions to pander to the conservative base (at the expense of his "Maverick" credentials although his campaign made of mockery out of that word through overuse anyway).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Feb 23 2010 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
It sounds like you might be fiscally conservative but maybe socially liberal. If that's the case, I'm not sure there is a party to represent you.
It'd be nice if there was.
#12 Feb 23 2010 at 6:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
It sounds like you might be fiscally conservative but maybe socially liberal. If that's the case, I'm not sure there is a party to represent you.

That's supposed to be libertarians. But it seems like the libertarians either go extreme and margianlize themselves, or just side up with the Republicans (because the fiscal part is more important to them I guess?)

#13 Feb 23 2010 at 7:28 PM Rating: Decent
Diagram for the sake of making a text diagram:
 
           Fiscally 
    cons              lib 
   c 
   o (Varus)          (R) 
   n 
 S s 
 o 
 c 
 i 
 a 
 l 
 l 
 y 
   l 
   i (L)               (D) 
   b 
R, L, and D stand for Republican, Libertarian, and Democrat, respectively (at least, as far as where they're supposed to be).
#14 Feb 23 2010 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
It sounds like you might be fiscally conservative but maybe socially liberal. If that's the case, I'm not sure there is a party to represent you.


Some, not all, flavors of tea party take this stance. Pseudo-libertarian party that has a higher electability quotient. At least that's the spin I got from talking to someone in its leadership.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#15 Feb 23 2010 at 9:00 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
At best, I get the impression that some members of the Tea Party groups are fiscal conservatives and social agnostics. They won't be out fighting to stop gay marriage but they won't spend any breath advocating for it either.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Feb 23 2010 at 9:29 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Social agnosticism? I like the sound of that. Kind of like, "I don't care what you do as long as you don't ruin everyone else"?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#17 Feb 23 2010 at 9:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Debalic wrote:
Social agnosticism? I like the sound of that. Kind of like, "I don't care what you do as long as you don't ruin everyone else"?


That would be the fundamental platform of the libertarian party, yes.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#18 Feb 23 2010 at 9:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Mccain has a history of going back and forth on domestic issues. the immigration one, I'll give him a pass on since Arizona is a mexico border state and the politics of that are a complete landmine to navigate from my understanding, but realistically there is a large segment of his political platform that is very fluid both ways, depending on what he needs to support to get one of his own programs moved forward. He has always been a strong supporter of the military and military research programs, which I believe are key to maintaining our technological dominance in the armed forces (especially now that china has greater manufacturing capacity than us by a huge margin). He also tends to have fairly good relations overseas, with the possible glaring exceptions of Vietnam and North Korea for some reason...

The real dealbreaker for another presidential shot for him is likely going to be the age issue and the potential return of cancer issue. If he can pick a strong running mate who can speak coherently, he might have a chance, but I really think that the GOP needs to field a younger, non palin candidate in the next election. I think Obama is going to take a severe hit in the polls this next election, but I don't think it will be enough to get him out of office unless the republicans can field a viable, scandal free candidate
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#19 Feb 23 2010 at 11:31 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Debalic wrote:
Social agnosticism? I like the sound of that. Kind of like, "I don't care what you do as long as you don't ruin everyone else"?

Well, include a disinterest in defending anyone's right to do it as well and you're on the right track.

I didn't mean to imply that McCain would ever run for president again. He won't. I was just talking about the "flip-flopping" charges.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Feb 24 2010 at 12:11 AM Rating: Excellent
I didn't vote for John McCain for president, and I hope he loses his seat this November.

I consider myself a conservative, but I am perfectly happy to be called a Libertarian.
#21 Feb 24 2010 at 7:45 AM Rating: Decent
*****
18,463 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
I consider myself a conservative, but I am perfectly happy to be called a Libertarian.
Interesting. Since you didn't vote for Ye Aulde McCain, was there another candidate even going back to the primaries, that you were rooting for?
#22 Feb 24 2010 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
I was not enthusiastic about anyone during my precinct caucus. I voted for Mitt Romney though, as he was the least objectionable to me. If Ron Paul weren't so much like Ross Perot, I might have voted for him. Mike Huckabee was and is a nutter, so he was right out.
#23 Feb 24 2010 at 9:32 AM Rating: Decent
**
907 posts
The McCain radio and TV adds here lately have been bothering me. Usage of phrases like "leading the attack on Obama" seems overly negative does nothing for all of the partisanship already present. Have other local candidates been using similar language? Whether you like Obama or not, I don't think you should necessarily be "attacking" him.
#24 Feb 24 2010 at 9:34 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
It was all JohnM's fault that SarahP lost. >.<
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#25 Feb 24 2010 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Whether you like Obama or not, I don't think you should necessarily be "attacking" him.

Why not? Because we historically don't attack the commander in chief because we disagree with his views or the direction we think he's leading the country? Is it out of respect for the office that we name waste water treatment facilities after him?
#26 Feb 24 2010 at 9:37 AM Rating: Decent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
It's a bit ominous to "attack" the person instead of the policy. I don't remember anyone boasting about attacking Bush, although of course there were tons of attacks on his administration and on neocon policies in particular.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 330 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (330)