Why do people like Chris Christie?

[Bo's Pelini]

I've never seen this guy say anything thoughtful and he always seems angry. Why is he so appealing to confused peopled like Kotter?

[chiefzilla1501]

For as much shit as Christie gets about being abrasive, he's very good at reaching across the aisle.

The biggest problem with the conservative party isn't that there are people in power who aren't principled enough. It's that they've become so principled that they don't realize that you have to give a little in order to take a little. The Republican party needs a conservative version of Bill Clinton. Think Christie can do that, even if it's couched in a tough skin vs. a slick salesman approach.

Also... Christie is one of the next wave of conservatives, in my opinion, who can appeal to the religious right/neocons without taking on too many positions that piss off moderates.

[scott free]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

For as much shit as Christie gets about being abrasive, he's very good at reaching across the aisle.

The biggest problem with the conservative party isn't that there are people in power who aren't principled enough. It's that they've become so principled that they don't realize that you have to give a little in order to take a little. The Republican party needs a conservative version of Bill Clinton. Think Christie can do that, even if it's couched in a tough skin vs. a slick salesman approach.

Also... Christie is one of the next wave of conservatives, in my opinion, who can appeal to the religious right/neocons without taking on too many positions that piss off moderates.

I agree with 100% of this.

Particularly the last part about the new breed of conservatives coming up, what i've been reading says a lot of the younger guys are sick of the "small tent" mentality and ideological purity tests... to paraphrase Jindal, "we dont have to change our conservative principles to be more accessible and appealing to the new demographics of this country".

The reps have become too well known as the stodgy good old boys club, where anything that might look like compromise is anathema, and its starting to sound like a lot of the new guys get it.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Dogma and rigid ideological extemism is not the same as "values."

I'm always amused at your special ability to say absolutely nothing valuable, and make it sound like something profoundly intellectual.

Holding the position that government follow the constitution is considered "ideological extemism" (sic), whereas breaking and bending the rules where its convenient is considered sound and moderate. Yep, sounds like Kotter...

What can anyone expect from a guy who went from Clinton, to Bush II, to Obama? Anyone who has been around this forum for any amount of time knows that you are strictly motivated by being in the popular group (whatever that is at the moment) so you can satisfy your deeply ingrained psychological need for being accepted.

Also, to directly answer the silly quote above - an ideology is a collection of values that are connected together by reasoning. It's cute how you thought you were saying something profound, though.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'm always amused at your special ability to say absolutely nothing valuable, and make it sound like something profoundly intellectual.

Holding the position that government follow the constitution is considered "ideological extemism" (sic), whereas breaking and bending the rules where its convenient is considered sound and moderate. Yep, sounds like Kotter...

What can anyone expect from a guy who went from Clinton, to Bush II, to Obama? Anyone who has been around this forum for any amount of time knows that you are strictly motivated by being in the popular group (whatever that is at the moment) so you can satisfy your deeply ingrained psychological need for being accepted.

Also, to directly answer the silly quote above - an ideology is a collection of values that are connected together by reasoning. It's cute how you thought you were saying something profound, though.

The problem is when people forget that ideology is about ideas. Execution is about executing ideas to get them done.

Sometimes we get so stuck on a guy with ideas that we forget that they mean nothing until they are put into action. Obama has been much more pushy about pushing liberal policy through than Clinton. But one of those guys knew how to get things done, and the other doesn't have a ****ing clue.

Conservatives don't need a conservative version of Obama who will railroad his ideologies on people. They need their version of Clinton. That's one reason why I think the Ron Paul movement is interesting in "idea", but it's just not practical in practice.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The problem is when people forget that ideology is about ideas. Execution is about executing ideas to get them done.

Sometimes we get so stuck on a guy with ideas that we forget that they mean nothing until they are put into action. Obama has been much more pushy about pushing liberal policy through than Clinton. But one of those guys knew how to get things done, and the other doesn't have a ****ing clue.

Conservatives don't need a conservative version of Obama who will railroad his ideologies on people. They need their version of Clinton. That's one reason why I think the Ron Paul movement is interesting in "idea", but it's just not practical in practice.

It's considered "ideologically extreme" in this nation right now to believe that the president shouldn't be allowed to have a kill list in which he can assassinate Americans without trial or any form of due process. In this case "Execution" is about executing Americans. It turns out that it's not "practical" to stand firm in the conviction of the morality of due process, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

I don't know where the line of "compromise" is on this issue, but what I do know is that I'm not interested in finding it. What I'm interested in is people coming to their senses before we get any further down the slippery slope on this issue (and any number of others).

[Taco John]

It's considered "ideologically extreme" in this nation right now to believe that the US shouldn't be sending F-16 fighter jets to Egypt - one of the most unstable governments in the world right now. They took a vote on this issue yesterday, and 79 senators voted to move forward with these arms transfers, with only 19 Senators trying to stop it from happening.

I don't know where the line of "compromise" is on this issue. What is the benefit of arming an unstable government who very easily be an enemy to us (and are already an enemy to our allies)?

[theelusiveeightrop]

Seems like a guy who you would want to have beer and ribs with.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Taco John

It's considered ideologically extreme in this nation right now to believe that the president shouldn't be allowed to have a kill list in which he can assassinate Americans without trial or any form of due process. In this case "Execution" is about executing Americans. It turns out that it's not "practical" to stand firm in the conviction of the morality of due process, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

Obama has been a disaster. The problem is, instead of conservatives rising to the occasion and making Obama look foolish, they are looking even more inept, which actually makes inept Obama look capable to the general public.

I don't know where the line of "compromise" is on this issue, but what I do know is that I'm not interested in finding it. What I'm interested in is people coming to their senses and returning to a government with checks and balances.

Then that's the majority of the problem with the Republican party. We're seeing it in the foolish way they've handled the fiscal cliff negotiation.

Again, nobody would accuse Clinton of compromising liberal principles. But he got shit done because he knew how to negotiate, even if that meant he had to concede a few things to Newt. That's the kind of leadership the conservatives need. Unfortunately, the most recent wave of politicians isn't interested in that. They're more interested in pushing principles, even if that means (as is the case with the Boehner congress) go for all or nothing, and then look like a fool when you get nothing.

[Taco John]

It's considered "ideologically extreme" in this nation right now to believe that the Second Amendment exists to protect Americans from the government itself. Meanwhile, the government who we are supposed to be trusting has been caught red handed selling weapons to KNOWN violent drug criminals on the Mexican border. Now that same government is trying to disarm Americans and ban them from using the VERY WEAPONS that they were selling to known violent drug criminals on the Mexican border. What "compromise" does anyone suggest that a citizen living in a border town in Texas or Arizona should make to satisfy the Democrat demand that they disarm and stop owning scary looking weapons?

How do we "move forward" on this issue? Should we "move forward" - or be "ideological extremists" and stand our ground?

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'm always amused at your special ability to say absolutely nothing valuable, and make it sound like something profoundly intellectual.

Holding the position that government follow the constitution is considered "ideological extemism" (sic), whereas breaking and bending the rules where its convenient is considered sound and moderate. Yep, sounds like Kotter...

What can anyone expect from a guy who went from Clinton, to Bush II, to Obama? Anyone who has been around this forum for any amount of time knows that you are strictly motivated by being in the popular group (whatever that is at the moment) so you can satisfy your deeply ingrained psychological need for being accepted.

Also, to directly answer the silly quote above - an ideology is a collection of values that are connected together by reasoning. It's cute how you thought you were saying something profound, though.

If you can't understand what I'm saying, it's because of your ignorance. "Following the Constitution" is not an ideology. If you would take the time to read the actual document closely, and in conjunction with the Federalist Papers and other primary documents of the day, you might (although I doubt it) begin to understand how ridiculous folks like Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, you, and BEP truly are. The twisting and contortionist "reasoning" that you need to do to arrive at the intellectually vacant position of "original intent" and other strict constructionist interpretation of the founder's work is a valant, if entirely bankrupt "ideology." It's actually kinda pathetic the intellect of folks who subscribe to it.

The only thing MORE amusing, though, is your lame-assed attempt at pop psychology, in which you project what is clearly a major issue for you--poor self-esteem and sense of inadequacy. It's alright, anyone who has been around this forum for any amount of time knows that you are strictly motivated to conceal your ignorance and lack of formal education. I realize the folks at "Pheonix University" took you money, and sent you a diploma-milled "certificate"--but that don't count for much in the real world. Nice try though, "Dr. Phil." Heh.

Anyway here, I'll help you out a bit....

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/ideology

Ideology: A comprehensive and coherent set of basic beliefs about political, economic, social and cultural affairs that is held in common by a group of people within a society. Such interrelated ideas and teachings purport both to explain how political, economic, social and cultural institutions really do work and also to prescribe how such institutions ought ideally to operate. Conservative ideologues seek to demonstrate a close correspondence between "the way things are" and "the way things ought to be," thus legitimizing the existing order in the eyes of those who can be convinced to believe in the ideology. Liberal ideologies, on the other hand, set unconventional, higher, or even utopian standards with regard to what would constitute a legitimate and supportable social-economic-political system and then demonstrate in detail that the existing order does not even come close to meeting these standards, thereby de-legitimizing the existing system and helping mobilize believers in the ideology for concerted action to reform or overthrow the existing order. (In addition to their descriptive and prescriptive functions about existing and ideal social orders, ideologies may also include more specialized doctrines regarding the most suitable political strategies and tactics to be pursued by believers in their efforts to shore up or undermine the existing order.)

One useful way of categorizing ideologies from a political point of view focusses on differences in the ideologies' prescriptions for how much the government ought to be involved in directing or regulating economic, social and cultural affairs and how much individuals or voluntary organizations ought to be left alone to make their own (widely varied) decisions in these spheres of life. In this course, for example, we frequently employ a two-dimensional classification of ideologies proposed by Maddox and Lilie that is based on assessing people's preferences for government regulation versus non-regulation in:

1. Economic decisions
2. Non-economic or life-style decisions.

It should be noted that the term "ideology" often has a somewhat derogatory flavor, especially in Anglo-American societies, because it often carries the implication that "ideological" thought is unduly biased, dogmatic and distorted, an obstacle rather than an aid in perceiving how the world "really" works. ("You, sir, are an ideologue. I, on the other hand, am a pragmatic man of reason who sees things the way they really are.")


You TJ, are Exhibit A for an ignorant and self-delusional ideologue if ever there were one. But, by all means....keep grasping at straws, little fella. Meanwhile, leave the critical thinking to the adults in the room.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

<-----snip mindless babble ---/>

You're a clown. Nobody is reading you empty bullshit, especially not me.

Calling yourself a "pragmatic man of reason" is comedy at its finest. You're a man in a diaper hoping for a pat on the head from the popular kids. You exist to fit in. No one on this forum considers you even remotely close to a "critical thinker" so spare us the bullshit. You are pragmatic though, I got to give you that. It's always pragmatic to vote for what's popular. Always.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Taco John

It's considered "ideologically extreme" in this nation right now to believe that the Second Amendment exists to protect Americans from the government itself. Meanwhile, the government who we are supposed to be trusting has been caught red handed selling weapons to KNOWN violent drug criminals on the Mexican border. Now that same government is trying to disarm Americans and ban them from using the VERY WEAPONS that they were selling to known violent drug criminals on the Mexican border. What "compromise" does anyone suggest that a citizen living in a border town in Texas or Arizona should make to satisfy the Democrat demand that they disarm and stop owning scary looking weapons?

How do we "move forward" on this issue? Should we "move forward" - or be "ideological extremists" and stand our ground?

Ideologues tend to engage in faulty reasoning....frequently.

Exhibit B:

Use of propaganda techniques....generalization, card stacking, hyperbole, false dichotomy, and "testimonial" arguments. In one argument even!

As if upholding the intent of the 2nd Amendment is entirely and mutually exclusive and divorced from any and all attempts at reasonable, and legal attempts at gun control...that will surely be subjected to judicial review, and cannot and will not be imposed unilaterally by either the executive or legislative branches of government.

Holy shit...you are lame....

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Taco John

It's considered "ideologically extreme" in this nation right now to believe that the Second Amendment exists to protect Americans from the government itself. Meanwhile, the government who we are supposed to be trusting has been caught red handed selling weapons to KNOWN violent drug criminals on the Mexican border. Now that same government is trying to disarm Americans and ban them from using the VERY WEAPONS that they were selling to known violent drug criminals on the Mexican border. What "compromise" does anyone suggest that a citizen living in a border town in Texas or Arizona should make to satisfy the Democrat demand that they disarm and stop owning scary looking weapons?

How do we "move forward" on this issue? Should we "move forward" - or be "ideological extremists" and stand our ground?

How do you move forward on this issue? I know one way. How about in a time of extreme public sensitivity to the issue where the media is playing up the "kids got shot" angle, not to use that as a time to become cowboys about demanding less gun control?

It's an "all or nothing" strategy. If conservatives compromise, gun owners lose a few rights, but they get to keep a lot of them, and the issue sweeps away. The more conservatives fight back, the more rights they lose and the more this becomes an issue that never goes away, which increases the likelihood that future politicians will go on a gun control crusade.

I'm for gun rights, by the way. I also don't believe it's worth losing it all to stand your ground, when you have opportunity to soften the blow.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

If conservatives compromise, gun owners lose a few rights, but they get to keep a lot of them, and the issue sweeps away.

WRONG.

They lose a few rights.

And then the next public tragedy happens and they lose a few more.

The 2nd amendment shouldn't be subject to Washington DCs slippery slope bullshit.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

How do you move forward on this issue? I know one way. How about in a time of extreme public sensitivity to the issue where the media is playing up the "kids got shot" angle, not to use that as a time to become cowboys about demanding less gun control?

It's an "all or nothing" strategy. If conservatives compromise, gun owners lose a few rights, but they get to keep a lot of them, and the issue sweeps away. The more conservatives fight back, the more rights they lose and the more this becomes an issue that never goes away, which increases the likelihood that future politicians will go on a gun control crusade.

I'm for gun rights, by the way. I also don't believe it's worth losing it all to stand your ground, when you have opportunity to soften the blow.

Ah, that's wonderful. Just slide a little ways down the slippery slope *just* this time, and be happy they didn't take you all the way down in one stroke.

No thanks. I'm happy being an "ideological extremist" and hold my ground. If "assult weapons" are good enough for drug lords on the border, they're good enough for the citizens there as well.