The Paddock

MOMMY, MOMMY... tell this guy he's breaking the rules!!! This belongs in the political thread!!!

ROFLMMFAO!!!

Really... it never bothers me. The more, the merrier... but since you posted this, I expect you to stop your whining about others. Well, I don't really EXPECT you too... after all, you ARE a liberal. We all know how you guys don't like to live by the same rules... what's NEVER okay for a Conservative, is ALWAYS okay for a lib. SMDH

Not saying this guy isn't republican, because he very well could be, but people cross tickets all the time in local politics. The area is probably 80% republican. IF he were democrat, no way would he win sherrif. The only way is to run as a republican. Happens all the time. Again, I'm not saying he's not republican.

White supremacy groups are a conservative republican thing. And you talking about the middle is a joke. A joke like 100% of your posts. To be in the middle you have to have some opinions that aren't extreme right. Name one. Being a liberal isn't extreme. There are extreme liberals but just a liberal doesn't mean extreme. Only morons on the extreme right think so.

lib·er·al
   [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA

adjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2.
( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Synonyms
1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.

Antonyms
1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.

It "says" he's a Republican candidate. Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't. There sure wasn't a ton of information, and I do mean "meaningful" information in that very short article.
I'd need a little bit more background on this one than there is available.
And maybe he's a Democratic 'plant' in the race to discredit the local Republican Party apparatus. Our liberal friends have been known to not play fair or by the rules when it serves their agenda. And if some of the local Republican Party apparatus there is anything like some of my local apparatus around here, then maybe there's a little that's left to be desired there............ just sayin'. And of course, the very same thing holds true for the Democrats around here too! So, it's a two way street of questionable views as far as I can see.
And Carl......... JJ is right. He's ALWAYS right, because he's a Marine, and Marines ARE NEVER, EVER WRONG! And that also applies to SOLDIERS, and LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS too!

The above signed sealed and delivered by this guy

I'm with ya on the marines and soldiers. But I'd take a piss on some of the Police Officers I've had contact with. And I don't care that they have tough jobs. Hell I've got a tough job.

He threw the cops in there because he is one. He's not right about soldiers either. No one group is correct 100% of the time. None of them. Sadly some people can't grasp that simple concept. Another example of a soldier that wasn't correct

This guy cost the south the war with his insane decisions at Gettysburgh

Just say'in.

Conservatives were democrats then. Everyone knows that. What's your point? Forrest, Custer, and Lee could all have been democrats. I'm not making a democrat vs republican argument. I'm just proving not all soldiers opinions and decisions are correct like dumbcat suggested. Try to keep up.

Trying to define conservatism, or liberalism, using a dictionary, is absurd. For example, I do not know any conservatives who are trying conserve the status quo. Most conservatives are seeking substantial change in government, not preservation of what has existed over the last 60 - 70 years. Conservatives are trying to preserve, or conserve, the principles in the Constitution. Conserving those principles do not result in maintaining the status quo, as most conservatives believe those principles have long been violated and that government has over stepped its Constitutional authority. So in many cases, it is conservatives that are seeking reform, in contrast to the definition.

The dictionary definition placed in its historical context can be quite useful.

Conservatism is about concentration of power; liberalism is about dispersal of power. Monarchy is the extreme on one end; communism on the other. We're clearly not close to either extreme, but we're tugging either one way or the other.

Today's Republicans love to clad themselves in the context of liberalism, especially the constitution, but their policies and actions promote power concentration rather than dispersal.

We have three guys running for the Republican nomination; two of whom are funded nearly exclusively by wealthy individuals and the third is such an individual himself. Our founding fathers did not anticipate the power of money and media in politics, but they certainly would not be comfortable with such a limited number of people having their views supersede those of ordinary citizens. Their ability to do so is a direct result of the conservative push over the last decade to concentrate wealth at the top and allow that wealth to be used in the political process. A king couldn't do it any better.