Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Thinking about a Christie/Cruz or Christie/Rubio ticket for 2016

124»

Replies

  • Jack BurtonJack Burton Member Posts: 379 Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Forgive me if I look at the Santorums of the world with a jaundiced eye.

    Of course I forgive you, it's the Christian thing to do. :wink:
    Came for the fishing, stayed for the guns.
  • topguntopgun Member Posts: 128 Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    More and more (especially with Bill Clinton's open disapproval of Obama) it seems that there will be a Hillary coronation celebration for the 2016 Democrat presidency.

    As was said in another thread here, the pendulum is starting to swing back, and it will likely continue to do so in the next couple years, but mostly anti-Obama and not generally anti-liberal idiot. This pretty much guarantees a Hillary 8-year reign which will devastate things, especially via a revamped Supreme Court.

    You can sign me up to the ABH (Anyone But Hillary) ticket today. And right now (and for the next few years, regrettably) this means that a genuine conservative really cannot expect to win the presidency. I don't mean that someone like Cruz or Rubio or Jindal wouldn't be a fine choice. They very likely would.

    But face facts -- the general electorate just isn't yet moved that much back toward the right such that a conservative-led ticket can be elected in 2016.

    Looking at Christie, I just have to realize the truth: He is probably the ONLY one who can defeat Hillary. He's got his failings -- he's obviously not an ideal conservative and is a genuine moderate Republican. But he's got the energy and willpower and brains and confrontational skills to win where similar middle-road Republicans like Romney had no zip or zim for victory.

    If someone can recommend a genuine alternative ticket whom you think could actually defeat the Hillary juggernaut in 2016, please let's talk about it.

    But I really cannot see anything feasible in this real world, real election potentials, real and authentic campaign, that would match a Christie/Cruz or Christie/Rubio ticket.

    We've got to do SOMETHING to prevent a Hillary sweep, because if she wins she'll also bring in a Democrat-controlled House and Senate.

    I honestly think that Christie would be acceptable. Realize, he can change and alter his views too, and a good solid support from the Cruz side of the party could easily influence his actions later. He'd at least be honest and open and a not-Democrat. Perfect? Of course not. Better than Hillary? Oh, my sodden spirit, yes.

    Or whom do you see as more winnable? I like Cruz or Rubio, true, but I really cannot see their winning the election yet. The pendulum simply hasn't swung far enough yet.

    I wouldn't vote for Christie as dog-catcher.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,640 Senior Member
    Of course I forgive you, it's the Christian thing to do. :wink:
    Like Christians invented the concept. :tooth:
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »

    "Morality" is a word I don't care for - I prefer "Ethics". "Morality", much like "Laws" are an imperfect way to codify the uncodifable - ETHICS. Except "Morality" usually has religious overtones.


    From these definitions it would appear that you're trying to separate Siamese twins by saying one is not a part of the other.

    moral (plural morals):
    1. a lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
    2. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

    ethics :
    1. moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
    2. the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Jack BurtonJack Burton Member Posts: 379 Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Like Christians invented the concept. :tooth:
    Try the Muslims then.
    Came for the fishing, stayed for the guns.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    Try the Muslims then.
    Doubtful considering Mohammed didn't start to claim to get revelations from Allah until 610 AD, ending with his death in 632 AD.

    Hard to invent someone before another group when your group's major prophet shows up 600 years after their Messiah...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,640 Senior Member
    Try the Muslims then.
    The other side of the same coin.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,640 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    From these definitions it would appear that you're trying to separate Siamese twins by saying one is not a part of the other.

    moral (plural morals):
    1. a lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
    2. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

    ethics :
    1. moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
    2. the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
    Yea, I know the dictionary definitions. I read something recently that said something like: "Ethics ask 'Who gets hurt?', whereas morals ask 'Who won't like it?'." Sometimes morals and ethics converge - but oftentimes they do not. Same thing with laws. Thus I prefer ethics - the most important subject that can be taught or learned. Like everyone else, I'm still figuring it out. Far better people than I have wrangled with these questions for thousands of years - and for thousands of years before the rise of populist monotheism for that matter.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • Jack BurtonJack Burton Member Posts: 379 Member
    Aristotle would be proud.
    Came for the fishing, stayed for the guns.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Like Christians invented the concept. :tooth:

    Turning the other cheek?

    Yeah.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,640 Senior Member
    Aristotle would be proud.
    Yea, he sure was one that was far wiser than I!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Job 23:3
    Jerry
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Yea, I know the dictionary definitions. I read something recently that said something like: "Ethics ask 'Who gets hurt?', whereas morals ask 'Who won't like it?'." Sometimes morals and ethics converge - but oftentimes they do not. Same thing with laws. Thus I prefer ethics - the most important subject that can be taught or learned. Like everyone else, I'm still figuring it out. Far better people than I have wrangled with these questions for thousands of years - and for thousands of years before the rise of populist monotheism for that matter.

    Those two words; I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Anyway, both morals and ethics require a basis on which to form the ideas and concepts of what is good vs. evil.

    Now then, most all laws for Western Europe have their basis in early religious laws. History teaches that the Church, of whatever flavor, wielded great power and authority for several centuries. That is fact. Getting on their bad side was not a good thing. The Ten Commandments is one of the sources used. And English Common Law draws from several sources, including natural law. And the old philosopher's writings had some input.

    The problem is that morals and ethics come in many flavors and degrees of flavors. Saying you base things on morals or ethics is pretty nebulous. Are the basis for ones morals and ethics situational, learned on the street, gleaned from reading, etc.? And where did the original thinking for those ethics come from in the first place? Either can be good or bad (relative to the person's own belief), and can be seen entirely differently to an outside observer.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,640 Senior Member
    No argument there, tenmike. And I am *VERY* well aware of the history of western Europe - and the 1,000 year dark age "the church" brought that region. And again, the Ten Commandments are part ethics, part "morality" peculiar to (and ONLY to) Abrahamic monotheistic religions - and as such this latter part has no place in secular law. People have been imprisoned and killed for 2 thousand years over violations of the "moral part" of the Ten Commandments. Paired with this is the horrifying concept of "heresy" - an evil so great that it doesn't bear thinking about.

    The original thinking for ethics certainly predates monotheism - these thoughts have been debated and discussed for millennia, and will continue to be so.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • Jack BurtonJack Burton Member Posts: 379 Member
    Yet here we are 2,000 years later and no awakening of us poor diluted souls seems to be on the horizon any time soon. What is a "intolerant ethical non-monotheistic religious critical thinking secularist" to do in a world of "unethical moralizing theocratic-republicans of the dominionistic populist monotheism Christian sect"?
    Came for the fishing, stayed for the guns.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,640 Senior Member
    Resist with all my might.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • Jack BurtonJack Burton Member Posts: 379 Member
    Stay thirsty my friend.
    Came for the fishing, stayed for the guns.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,640 Senior Member
    Don't get me wrong - I don't think *all* Christians are this way. I don't even think a majority of them are this way, although I'm sure many are swept along with the Dominionist agenda simply because its "Christian" and they don't understand the ramifications. But we don't need another dark age that the monotheistic theocrats of many stripes would bring us. I cannot think of a more potent evil.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement