Conquer Club

Group #1

George Bush, Dick Cheney, John Mccain, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Sarah Palin etc

or

Group #2

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Tim Scott, Ron Paul, Allen West

They both suck, bring on the kitties.

Im more group 2. Slight problem with Cruz wife has ties to CFR. Rubio is more like group 1 than group 2 now. West needs to pay his taxes.

In group 1 Bush was cool but the rest all sound like douches.

The only name I recognise from group 2 is Ron Paul, and that's only from /b/'s old 'ron paul' word filter.

Inconclusive.

Ted Cruz is now courting the "Christian Conservative Right"
by claiming he has voices in his head and is doing God's work.

I also vote inconclusive. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have not demonstrated to me that they belong in the same camp as Ron Paul from a small government perspective. Cruz did a good job of glomming on to Paul during the drone stuff, but I suspect with a Republican president he'd be firmly in the camp of the executive. Rubio is a same old Republican as far as I can tell.

Also, where's Chris Christie at?

I like Ron Paul in a "put a rubber spider in your sister's shoe to watch her freak out" kinda way but, at the end of the day, I'm not sure I want the rubber spider to be president.

I vote Taki Theodoracopulos, et. al. Like Ron Paul but with 50% less crazy eye, and 100% more booze, girls and sportscars. I'm not clear if Taki ever became a U.S. citizen, but, then again, I don't know if Ted Cruz did either so c'est la vie.

Ugh. I at least respect Ron Paul, but so many in his group are just serving their own interests. I can't choose.

oVo wrote:Ted Cruz is now courting the "Christian Conservative Right"
by claiming he has voices in his head

if he's hearing disembodied voices, it sounds more like he's courting the Zodiac Killer's vote

Id be very surprised if the first category gets any votes (other than trolls).

Also I think you guys need to see the forest for the trees here. What PS is asking is do you prefer traditional republicans (not sure thats the right title but sub in big govt or big security or hardline conservative or whatever) or small government republicans (or in this case, liberal-ish republicans etc)?

Correct PS?

Lootifer wrote:Re: A Tale of Two Republicans

Post by Lootifer » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:57 pm
Also I think you guys need to see the forest for the trees here. What PS is asking is do you prefer traditional republicans (not sure thats the right title but sub in big govt or big security or hardline conservative or whatever) or small government republicans (or in this case, liberal-ish republicans etc)?

Correct PS?

I don't know enough of them to vote for group two, but if we are voting on small government, I'll lobby for it.

IMO the U.S. Republican party's factions can be divided three ways, all on the basis of their views on Israel. The libertarian label seems to be a smoke and mirrors game; by digging down into a self-described Republican libertarian's view on Israel you can drop them into the category into which they really belong.

Neo-Cons ... Israel is industrious

The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. When Americans look at Israel, we see a pioneer spirit that worked an agricultural miracle and now leads a high-tech revolution.
- George Bush

Christian Coalition ... Israel is holy

[We] support Israel because we believe that the words of Moses and the ancient prophets of Israel were inspired by God. We believe that the emergence of a Jewish state in the land promised by God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was ordained by God.
- Pat Robertson

Old Right ... Israel is a snake

There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East—the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States. Israel and its Fifth Column in this city seek to stampede us into war with Iran.
- Pat Buchanan

saxitoxin wrote:I'm not clear if Taki ever became a U.S. citizen, but, then again, I don't know if Ted Cruz did either so c'est la vie.

Neither is eligible to become the American President.

I do like Chris Christie, though he doesn't tow the Party line tight enough to have a snowball's chance in hell unless he manages to get his foot in the door and there is a voter crunch of support that won't let him off the hook.

oVo wrote:I do like Chris Christie

Why?

I don't honestly know anything about him other than he's morbidly obese and Shaq likes him.

where's the option for "shoot them all"?

fadedpsychosis wrote:where's the option for "shoot them all"?

You must judge one as better than the other, you can still shoot them afterwards.

thegreekdog wrote:I also vote inconclusive. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have not demonstrated to me that they belong in the same camp as Ron Paul from a small government perspective. Cruz did a good job of glomming on to Paul during the drone stuff, but I suspect with a Republican president he'd be firmly in the camp of the executive. Rubio is a same old Republican as far as I can tell.

Also, where's Chris Christie at?

Definitely Christie goes in group one with the Progressives. And none in group 2 are Progressives, all in group 1 are Progressives.

In group 2, they all have different strengths in different areas, not only smaller government. Sorry for your inconclusiveness.....let me try asking it this way, do you like Progressive Republicans, or do you like non-Progressive Republicans? OR which do you generally prefer

FYI smaller government is not the only thing that Ron Paul stands for. And don't usually expect too much from freshman Senators in the minority, but together they did get us spending cuts, and they got Obama to sign it (not easy).

Is small govt progressive? Lol im confused ><

Lootifer wrote:Is small govt progressive? Lol im confused ><

No

Lootifer wrote:Is small govt progressive? Lol im confused ><

Small government is progressive inasmuch as we have a big government, we've had a big government for quite some time, and the government keeps getting bigger.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I also vote inconclusive. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have not demonstrated to me that they belong in the same camp as Ron Paul from a small government perspective. Cruz did a good job of glomming on to Paul during the drone stuff, but I suspect with a Republican president he'd be firmly in the camp of the executive. Rubio is a same old Republican as far as I can tell.

Also, where's Chris Christie at?

Definitely Christie goes in group one with the Progressives. And none in group 2 are Progressives, all in group 1 are Progressives.

In group 2, they all have different strengths in different areas, not only smaller government. Sorry for your inconclusiveness.....let me try asking it this way, do you like Progressive Republicans, or do you like non-Progressive Republicans? OR which do you generally prefer

FYI smaller government is not the only thing that Ron Paul stands for. And don't usually expect too much from freshman Senators in the minority, but together they did get us spending cuts, and they got Obama to sign it (not easy).

Hmm... I would not put Christie in with progressives, unless, of course, you don't like his social politics. Drudge doesn't like Christie because of social policies. The Tea Party doesn't like Christie because of social policies. And he won't win a Republican primary for those reasons.

thegreekdog wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Is small govt progressive? Lol im confused ><

Small government is progressive inasmuch as we have a big government, we've had a big government for quite some time, and the government keeps getting bigger.

Oh really? Does that mean Ron Paul is a Progressive?

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I also vote inconclusive. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have not demonstrated to me that they belong in the same camp as Ron Paul from a small government perspective. Cruz did a good job of glomming on to Paul during the drone stuff, but I suspect with a Republican president he'd be firmly in the camp of the executive. Rubio is a same old Republican as far as I can tell.

Also, where's Chris Christie at?

Definitely Christie goes in group one with the Progressives. And none in group 2 are Progressives, all in group 1 are Progressives.

In group 2, they all have different strengths in different areas, not only smaller government. Sorry for your inconclusiveness.....let me try asking it this way, do you like Progressive Republicans, or do you like non-Progressive Republicans? OR which do you generally prefer

FYI smaller government is not the only thing that Ron Paul stands for. And don't usually expect too much from freshman Senators in the minority, but together they did get us spending cuts, and they got Obama to sign it (not easy).

thegreekdog wrote:Hmm... I would not put Christie in with progressives, unless, of course, you don't like his social politics. Drudge doesn't like Christie because of social policies. The Tea Party doesn't like Christie because of social policies. And he won't win a Republican primary for those reasons.

Christie isn't on the list.

Were you able to come to a conclusion about if you prefer Progressives or non Progressive Republicans?

Maybe you are a closet Progressive? I've never seen a Libertarian correct people with such passion and commitment when others misspeak about Obama, while constantly misspeaking and encouraging misspeaking about the Tea Party

Phatscotty wrote:Oh really? Does that mean Ron Paul is a Progressive?

No. Ron Paul is progressive. Ron Paul is not a Progressive.

See what I did there?

Phatscotty wrote:Were you able to come to a conclusion about if you prefer Progressives or non Progressive Republicans?

Are you a Progressive? I've never seen a Libertarian correct people with such passion and commitment when others misspeak about Obama, while constantly misspeaking and encouraging misspeaking about the Tea Party

I prefer non-Progressive Republicans.

Let's do some fact-checking, defining, and the like.

Part One - Definitions

progressive - a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas. Synonyms include "libertarian."

https://www.google.com/#q=definition+of+progressive

liberal - open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
liberal (noun) - a person of liberal views

https://www.google.com/#q=definition+of+liberal

Someone who is progressive and liberal cannot be in favor of big government because, as I stated before, we have a big federal government.

Ron Paul is a progressive and a liberal under the above definitions. If, however, your definition of Progressive and Liberal is someone who wants bigger government, Ron Paul is not a Progressive or a Liberal. Chris Christie is also not a Progressive or a Liberal. I know you (and the Tea Party) dislike Christie because he hugged the president and because he works with Democrats and because he is okay with gay marriage (as a governor no less - shame on the Tea Party for saying "we want states to decide" and then lambasting a pro gay marriage GOVERNOR) and because he is probably pro-choice. Nevermind that outlawing gay marriage and outlawing abortions necessitates bigger government, which make someone like Ted Cruz a Progressive (if your definition of a Progressive is someone who wants bigger government).

The Tea Party

http://www.ontheissues.org/Tea_Party.htm

Rand Paul:
Abortion - has introduced multiple bills to outlaw all abortion.
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage, views it as a state issue
Patriot Act - voted against

Ted Cruz:
Abortion - pro life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage

Mike Lee:
Abortion - unclear
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage
Patriot Act - voted against

Marco Rubio
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage
Patriot Act - voted for extending

Ron Johnson
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage
Partiot Act - voted for extending

Tim Scott
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - unclear
Patriot Act - voted for extending

Allen West
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - currently unclear
Patriot Act - supports Patriot Act

The only thing most of these guys have in common with me is that they are in favor of smaller government for economic issues. For the most part, they are in favor of bigger government for social issues and are in favor of foreign intervention and in favor of the Patriot Act.

So yeah, as far as I'm concerned, they are Progressives and I don't see much of a difference between these guys and Chris Christie except that these guys would not have hugged President Obama I guess.

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Oh really? Does that mean Ron Paul is a Progressive?

No. Ron Paul is progressive. Ron Paul is not a Progressive.

See what I did there?

YUP! SURE DO!!!

Phatscotty wrote:Were you able to come to a conclusion about if you prefer Progressives or non Progressive Republicans?

Are you a Progressive? I've never seen a Libertarian correct people with such passion and commitment when others misspeak about Obama, while constantly misspeaking and encouraging misspeaking about the Tea Party

thegreekdog wrote:I prefer non-Progressive Republicans.

Let's do some fact-checking, defining, and the like.

Part One - Definitions

progressive - a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas. Synonyms include "libertarian."

https://www.google.com/#q=definition+of+progressive

liberal - open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
liberal (noun) - a person of liberal views

https://www.google.com/#q=definition+of+liberal

Someone who is progressive and liberal cannot be in favor of big government because, as I stated before, we have a big federal government.

Ron Paul is a progressive and a liberal under the above definitions. If, however, your definition of Progressive and Liberal is someone who wants bigger government, Ron Paul is not a Progressive or a Liberal. Chris Christie is also not a Progressive or a Liberal. I know you (and the Tea Party) dislike Christie because he hugged the president and because he works with Democrats and because he is okay with gay marriage (as a governor no less - shame on the Tea Party for saying "we want states to decide" and then lambasting a pro gay marriage GOVERNOR) and because he is probably pro-choice. Nevermind that outlawing gay marriage and outlawing abortions necessitates bigger government, which make someone like Ted Cruz a Progressive (if your definition of a Progressive is someone who wants bigger government).

Christie works with Democrats because he is Governor of a heavily Democrat state. I don't care what his position is on gay marriage, so long as he let's the people decide and does not do it through the courts or executive order. And I don't care he hugged the president. He would be an idiot if he didn't, since he is in charge of a deep blue state and were in the middle of an emergency (Hurricane Sandy). Who lambasted the pro gay marriage governor? Can you show some sources on that??

thegreekdog wrote:The Tea Party

http://www.ontheissues.org/Tea_Party.htm

Rand Paul:
Abortion - has introduced multiple bills to outlaw all abortion.
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage, views it as a state issue
Patriot Act - voted against

Ted Cruz:
Abortion - pro life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage

Mike Lee:
Abortion - unclear
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage
Patriot Act - voted against

Marco Rubio
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage
Patriot Act - voted for extending

Ron Johnson
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage
Partiot Act - voted for extending

Tim Scott
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - unclear
Patriot Act - voted for extending

Allen West
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - currently unclear
Patriot Act - supports Patriot Act

The only thing most of these guys have in common with me is that they are in favor of smaller government for economic issues. For the most part, they are in favor of bigger government for social issues and are in favor of foreign intervention and in favor of the Patriot Act.

So yeah, as far as I'm concerned, they are Progressives and I don't see much of a difference between these guys and Chris Christie except that these guys would not have hugged President Obama I guess.

I already pointed out Tea Party members have different positions on different issues, but they are united for smaller government, specifically on economic issues, as I have been pointing out for years. It's actually a great example of how people can work together despite not agreeing on every single issue. You say you are for smaller government, but you mock the only people who are actually for smaller government and continually bring up abortion and gay marriage, of which I could care less. I only care about the process and that it's done in a Democratic way and not imposed on people in a Tyrannical way, and that goes for all issues, not just gay marriage and abortion. The more issues people have a say in, the better I say. Don't you???

Gay marriage and Abortion have nothing to do with the Tea Party, also been pointing that out for years. I find it amazing you cannot talk about the Tea Party without bringing up gay marriage and abortion. And I think that's one of the biggest problems in our country..."Yes these guys can actually make progress on the biggest problems we have, but they have a different opinion on abortion, so I guess we'll go trillions more into debt and let the government take over a bunch of industries"