GOP Primary Megathread!

[DGuller]

Not really - nor do I think you are actually apathetic at all. Anymore than DG. What you are also certainly not is principled. You are ok (or "just don't care") about this because your tribe is all for it, and you are all for your tribe. There is nothing principled about your stance, or lack of a stance at all.

WTF did I do?

[Berkut]

I suppose not, but then, neither do you. You can make it clear that your values have nothing to do with what actual conservatism means however, as defined by the actual definition of the word.

Well, here's the thing.  I'm a conservative and you're not. 

Not sure I agree with that beyond that you are a member of the "conservative" tribe, and I am not. If the term "conservative" has any actual meaning that reflects the principles that a person stands for beyond their membership in their tribe, then I suspect I am much more deserving of the label than you are...

I don't get to define conservatism, per se, but I can define the type of conservative I am.

True, but then you could just as easily claim you are a communist who is all in favor of capitalism and the free market. It would be about as accurate as claiming you are any kind of actual conservative who is ok with the state mandating that women have ultrasounds.

Now tell me how my "values have nothing to do with what actual conservatism means."

I quote William F. Buckley:

It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.

The idea that the state should be able to force women to undergo what everyone explicitly agrees is a completely unnecessary and invasive medical procedure in the hopes that by doing so you can shame the woman into NOT undergoing some other medical procedure does not in any fashion fit into any kind of rational definition of conservatism - indeed, it is exactly the kind of state mandated social engineering that is precisely counter to the ideal of small, non-intrusive government that respects personal liberty and freedom above all.

Not really - nor do I think you are actually apathetic at all. Anymore than DG. What you are also certainly not is principled. You are ok (or "just don't care") about this because your tribe is all for it, and you are all for your tribe. There is nothing principled about your stance, or lack of a stance at all.

I really haven't given it enough thought to properly form an opinion.  If this were an Ohio law, I'd give it more thought, and it's entirely possible that I'd oppose (or support) such a law.

It doesn't take any serious amount of thought to conclude that the state should not mandate that women have shit shoved into their vaginas that they do not want shoved their in an effort to shame them into not having abortions.

[Razgovory]

You are mistaking the desire for local control as an actual political belief.  It's not.  Never has been.  It's a fall back position.  You claim "States Rights" or local control when you don't have the votes nationally.  Nobody says to themselves, "Gee, I like my conceal and carry laws, but I want the people in the next state over to come up laws that conflict with mine so when I visit there I have to get a different permit.  Because things that are true here and that I believe in aren't true 50 miles away from me."

What do you think my position is on that?

I'll let you put your own foot in your mouth.

[Berkut]

Not really - nor do I think you are actually apathetic at all. Anymore than DG. What you are also certainly not is principled. You are ok (or "just don't care") about this because your tribe is all for it, and you are all for your tribe. There is nothing principled about your stance, or lack of a stance at all.

WTF did I do?

Nothing at all.

[Viking]

I see, forcing a woman to pay for and suffer an involuntary medical procedure is irrellevant.

I don't care.  If it were Ohio legislation, I'd probably get off my ass & form an opinion.

I take it then that you never travel outside Ohio?

This is the core of my frustration with the people who call themselves conservative constitutionalists and fiscal conservatives. They only dislike big government when the government does things they don't like. They love big government when the government does what they do like.

You cool with libertarians, then?

Yes and No and Not Relevant. The issue I'm addressing here is Hypocracy. Libertarians can be hypocrites as well, especially when people claiming to be hypocrites oppose what Obama wants to make you do about insuring yourself but blithely disregard what Virginia wants to make you do before getting an abortion.

I like to think of myself as a Libertarian, but my Libertarian view, like all my views, are always moderated by reality.

The massive expansions of government during regan and bush II with nary a peep of criticism from fiscal conservatives and nasty restrictions of civil rights (if the government wants to) from conservative constitutionalists just shows this.

I voiced my opinions about Bush's spending & expansion of government.  Quite a few on the right were/are pissed off about it.  Some of them even started the Tea Party thing.

They started the tea party thing not when the spending was going haywire with the unfunded prescription drug benifits for seniors, the bush tax cuts and the bloat in the military budget. It's the same point as I have suggested before. American fiscal conservatives ONLY find their fiscal conservativeness when the bill is due and they are suffering from a spending hangover.

This is not me being all partisan liberal. I am a fully paid up member of The Norwegian Conservative Party and have been for 15 years. Which, despite the name, has classical liberal objectives and policies to make norway more classically liberal.

[grumbler]

Agreed, and, in fact, that's pretty much how I feel about the insurance mandate:  if the US wants to do something, and the Supreme Court doesn't say it's unconstitutional, they can have at it.  If some conservatives don't like it, their moans are music to my ears (ditto with some statists if it is overturned).

Good for you.  But the distinction is that laws passed in another state don't directly affect me, and within certain boundaries the people & lawmakers in other states can pass whatever laws they want, and deal with whatever consequences.

Federal laws, like Obamacare, do affect me.

To quote you, "I don't care" whether it affects you.   This issue isn't about you.

[Viking]

You are mistaking the desire for local control as an actual political belief.  It's not.  Never has been.  It's a fall back position.  You claim "States Rights" or local control when you don't have the votes nationally.  Nobody says to themselves, "Gee, I like my conceal and carry laws, but I want the people in the next state over to come up laws that conflict with mine so when I visit there I have to get a different permit.  Because things that are true here and that I believe in aren't true 50 miles away from me."

I am objecting to the hypocracy here. The only calculation that seems to be going on here is that the question "Am I willing to forego this freedom if I can deprive others of it?". Arguments about jurisdiction and constitution are all subject to that one question.

[Razgovory]

You are mistaking the desire for local control as an actual political belief.  It's not.  Never has been.  It's a fall back position.  You claim "States Rights" or local control when you don't have the votes nationally.  Nobody says to themselves, "Gee, I like my conceal and carry laws, but I want the people in the next state over to come up laws that conflict with mine so when I visit there I have to get a different permit.  Because things that are true here and that I believe in aren't true 50 miles away from me."

I am objecting to the hypocracy here. The only calculation that seems to be going on here is that the question "Am I willing to forego this freedom if I can deprive others of it?". Arguments about jurisdiction and constitution are all subject to that one question.

It's not hypocrisy.  They don't believe it to begin with. 

Derspeiss is demonstrating the big problem with Libertarianism and why it will never get off the ground (at least in the US).  It's inherently selfish.  It's an ideology that doesn't really care about what other people are doing.  There are a very few die hards who really believe having freedom for everyone, but most often if someone else's freedom is being limited that doesn't affect the libertarian, the libertarian doesn't really care.  This makes them pathetically easy to divide up.  One guy may be concerned about gun rights but not care if the guy in the state over gets arrested for smoking dope.  Hell, he might even support it.  So one party picks up the the pot head and the other picks up the gun nut.  Their power is thus divided because neither is sympathetic to the others plight.  They are only concerned with themselves.

[derspiess]

Not sure I agree with that beyond that you are a member of the "conservative" tribe, and I am not. If the term "conservative" has any actual meaning that reflects the principles that a person stands for beyond their membership in their tribe, then I suspect I am much more deserving of the label than you are...

You guys still doing the "tribe" thing here?

True, but then you could just as easily claim you are a communist who is all in favor of capitalism and the free market. It would be about as accurate as claiming you are any kind of actual conservative who is ok with the state mandating that women have ultrasounds.

I quote William F. Buckley:

It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.

Not that I disagree with that principle, but that's the libertarian flavor of conservatism.  FWIW, Buckley himself was anti-abortion.

The idea that the state should be able to force women to undergo what everyone explicitly agrees is a completely unnecessary and invasive medical procedure in the hopes that by doing so you can shame the woman into NOT undergoing some other medical procedure does not in any fashion fit into any kind of rational definition of conservatism - indeed, it is exactly the kind of state mandated social engineering that is precisely counter to the ideal of small, non-intrusive government that respects personal liberty and freedom above all.

Who are you arguing with here?  And why do you say "some other medical procedure" instead of "an abortion"?  Why not save yourself the keystrokes & be more precise at the same time?

It doesn't take any serious amount of thought to conclude that the state should not mandate that women have shit shoved into their vaginas that they do not want shoved their in an effort to shame them into not having abortions.

I'm quite serious when I say I haven't given it much thought to have formed an opinion.  I haven't read up on the issue and am not familiar with this type of ultrasound procedure or why proponents of the law are in favor of it.  All I know is that Grumbler is pretty pissed off, and you've gotten yourself into a froth.  I'd rather get my info from a less biased source-- if I decide to bother with it (which btw I don't think I'll be doing at work ).

[derspiess]

I take it then that you never travel outside Ohio?

I do, actually.  Nearly every day.  Point?

Yes and No and Not Relevant.

I was just curious.

The issue I'm addressing here is Hypocracy. Libertarians can be hypocrites as well, especially when people claiming to be hypocrites oppose what Obama wants to make you do about insuring yourself but blithely disregard what Virginia wants to make you do before getting an abortion.

Okay, you lost me there.

I like to think of myself as a Libertarian, but my Libertarian view, like all my views, are always moderated by reality.

Do I get to call you a hypocrite when you state a non-Libertarian view "moderated by reality"?

They started the tea party thing not when the spending was going haywire with the unfunded prescription drug benifits for seniors, the bush tax cuts and the bloat in the military budget.

It started brewing with those issues.  But it takes time to build up momentum. 

It's the same point as I have suggested before. American fiscal conservatives ONLY find their fiscal conservativeness when the bill is due and they are suffering from a spending hangover.

A fair point, at least in terms of GOP politicians.  Which is why there was an insurgent movement within the GOP to dump some of the offenders during the 2010 primaries.

This is not me being all partisan liberal.

You seem to post like one, at least whenever you voice your opinion on US politics.

I am a fully paid up member of The Norwegian Conservative Party and have been for 15 years. Which, despite the name, has classical liberal objectives and policies to make norway more classically liberal.

Good man.

[katmai]

Kentucky don't count and you know it spicy.

[Maximus]

I don't care.  If it were Ohio legislation, I'd probably get off my ass & form an opinion.

If you could choose between being a US citizen or an Ohio citizen(and could only pick one), which would you choose?

[derspiess]

I don't care.  If it were Ohio legislation, I'd probably get off my ass & form an opinion.

If you could choose between being a US citizen or an Ohio citizen(and could only pick one), which would you choose?

Uh... the first one. 

[Maximus]

What is the purpose of citizenship then?

[derspiess]

What is the purpose of citizenship then?

Sounds like a nice topic for a philosophical debate, but what are you getting at?