PDA

View Full Version : National Review endorses Mitt Romney


wazu
12-12-2007, 12:06 AM
http://www.drudgereport.com/rom.jpg

www.nationalreview.com (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxYTUyYzA1YTk2YzE5NGVmNjc0OGFjYWJmNzMzNjI=&p=1)

Romney for President

By the Editors

Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything — all the traits, all the positions — we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached, different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.

Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.

Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.

Two other major candidates would be able to keep the coalition together, but have drawbacks of their own. John McCain is not as conservative as Romney. He sponsored and still champions a campaign-finance law that impinged on fundamental rights of political speech; he voted against the Bush tax cuts; he supported this year’s amnesty bill, although he now says he understands the need to control the border before doing anything else.

Despite all that and more, he is a hero with a record that is far more good than bad. He has been a strong and farsighted supporter of the Iraq War, and, in a trying political season for him, he has preserved and even enhanced his reputation for dignity and seriousness. There would be worse nominees for the GOP (see above). But McCain ran an ineffectual campaign for most of the year and is still paying for it.

Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president.

Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.

It is true that he has less foreign-policy experience than Thompson and (especially) McCain, but he has more executive experience than both. Since almost all of the candidates have the same foreign-policy principles, what matters most is which candidate has the skills to execute that vision.

Like any Republican, he would have an uphill climb next fall. But he would be able to offer a persuasive outsider’s critique of Washington. His conservative accomplishments as governor showed that he can work with, and resist, a Demo*crat*ic legislature. He knows that not every feature of the health-care plan he enacted in Massachusetts should be replicated nationally, but he can also speak with more authority than any of the other Republican candidates about this pressing issue. He would also have credibility on the economy, given his success as a businessman and a manager of the Olympics.

Some conservatives question his sincerity. It is true that he has reversed some of his positions. But we should be careful not to overstate how much he has changed. In 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and “tougher measures to stop illegal immigration.” He was no Rockefeller Republican even then.

We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly. He will work to put abortion on a path to extinction. Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.

He still has some convincing to do with other conservatives. Romney has been plagued by the sense that his is a passionless, paint-by-the-numbers conservatism. If he is to win the nomination, he will have to show more of the kind of emotion and resolve he demonstrated in his College Station “Faith in America” speech.

For some people, Romney’s Mormonism is still a barrier. But we are not electing a pastor. The notion that he will somehow be controlled by Salt Lake City or engaged in evangelism for his church is outlandish. He deserves to be judged on his considerable merits as a potential president. As he argued in his College Station speech, his faith informs his values, which he has demonstrated in both the private and public sectors. In none of these cases have any specific doctrines of his church affected the quality of his leadership. Romney is an exemplary family man and a patriot whose character matches the high office to which he aspires.

More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.

SNR
12-12-2007, 12:13 AM
It's not exactly Chuck Norris...

Bill S Preston
12-12-2007, 12:31 AM
I'm voting for Ron Paul in the primary. My friend has been riding my ass for the last four months about the guy, and I when I went to research his position, I liked what I saw. My beliefs on the country follow his step for step.

wazu
12-12-2007, 12:31 AM
I'll be honest. I started out this whole campaign an avid Mitt supporter. I heard him on the Rush Limbaugh show a few years ago and really liked what he had to say. I was convinced that he was the fiscal conservative I had been hoping for. That is, until I heard Ron Paul speak in the debates.

Still, although my vote and my energy will be for Ron Paul, I hope Romney at least takes the lead for the neo-cons. Huckabee is a nightmare, and I don't trust Giuliani.

SNR
12-12-2007, 12:35 AM
I'll be honest. I started out this whole campaign an avid Mitt supporter. I heard him on the Rush Limbaugh show a few years ago and really liked what he had to say. I was convinced that he was the fiscal conservative I had been hoping for. That is, until I heard Ron Paul speak in the debates.

Still, although my vote and my energy will be for Ron Paul, I hope Romney at least takes the lead for the neo-cons. Huckabee is a nightmare, and I don't trust Giuliani.If I had to pick another Republican candidate, it'd definitely be McCain or Thompson

wazu
12-12-2007, 12:46 AM
If I had to pick another Republican candidate, it'd definitely be McCain or Thompson

I dunno, I get kind of tired of hearing McCain say "Washington changed us" and expecting me to forgive and forget. And everything this article says about Thompson is true. No proven ability to manage operations is a red flag. Romney was a successful businessman and Governor. He survived as a Republican governor in Massachusetts, and as a Mormon to boot. Thompson may have a "safe" record because he's never really been pushed to compromise, but Romney has battled it out in a liberal state and managed to succeed on a pretty conservative platform.

And I loved it when he turned to Huckabee in the last debate and compared him to Massachusetts liberals, saying that they always want to spend tax money to do good. His quote, I believe, was, "Governor, that's not your money!" That scored some points with me.

Taco John
12-12-2007, 01:35 AM
I'll be honest. I started out this whole campaign an avid Mitt supporter. I heard him on the Rush Limbaugh show a few years ago and really liked what he had to say. I was convinced that he was the fiscal conservative I had been hoping for. That is, until I heard Ron Paul speak in the debates.

Still, although my vote and my energy will be for Ron Paul, I hope Romney at least takes the lead for the neo-cons. Huckabee is a nightmare, and I don't trust Giuliani.



For a brief moment, when Rex was pimpling for Romney late last year, I though that I might be able to vote for the guy if it came down to it.

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 07:51 AM
I liked his ads at first. He sounds good. But then I read that article written by a woman from a citizen's group on him which was his tax and spend liberal ways. She had it all backed up too. Then he passed MittCare. So now he brags about not having Washington run health care....but instead he passes a fascist law forcing people to cover themselves who don't have insurance or forces their employers ( including small companies.) What's he going to do jail self-employed folks who choose to go without?

I think this endorsement may be a sign that Romney is tanking anyway. This NeoCon Review article admits that getting a Pub elected will be an uphill battle. They should know, since Mitt has advocated policies they have endorsed.

patteeu
12-12-2007, 09:46 AM
Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.

This should cut deep in recxjake land.

Mr. Kotter
12-12-2007, 10:00 AM
The GOP candidate will be one of three people; the same three I've touted all along....McCain, Romney, and Thompson. I could vote for any of them--especially against Hillary. If Obama wrestles the nomination from Hillary, it would be a tougher choice for me.

Huckabees flaws and warts are beginning to come into view, and he will flame out. If he does somehow manage to win, I'll be pulling for Obama big time to unseat Hillary.

Paul, though admirable and likeable, is out of synch with the majority of Republicans not only on Iraq but on a number of other issues.

Whoever emerges in Iowa-New Hampshire-South Carolina.... out of those three (McCain, Romney, and Thompson)....in the "best" position, will become the odds-on-favorite.

At this point, it would appear Romney has positioned himself the best; but McCain and Thompson, despite the doubts of some, are still "in the ball game."

JMHO

Pitt Gorilla
12-12-2007, 11:30 AM
"Governor, that's not your money!" That scored some points with me.Romney is going to have zero taxes?!?

Pitt Gorilla
12-12-2007, 11:34 AM
Paul, though admirable and likeable, is out of synch with the majority of Republicans not only on Iraq but on a number of other issues.What other issues? I thought Paul would make for a pretty good conservative choice.

HC_Chief
12-12-2007, 11:34 AM
Mitt Romney = conservative?

ooookaaayyyyyy..... :rolleyes:

patteeu
12-12-2007, 12:10 PM
Mitt Romney = conservative?

ooookaaayyyyyy..... :rolleyes:

Are you familiar with the positions he takes on the issues, as opposed to the characterizations of his history we get from his detractors? Have you heard any of his speeches (not debate answers, but full blown speeches)?

Cochise
12-12-2007, 12:35 PM
Yeah, I'd vote for him. Probably not in the primaries but I wouldn't rule it out.

HolmeZz
12-12-2007, 01:21 PM
Mitt Romney = conservative?

ooookaaayyyyyy..... :rolleyes:

He's a complete empty suit. He's got no core values. Giuliani's worse, but he hasn't run from his liberal record as much.

Adept Havelock
12-12-2007, 03:04 PM
Have you heard any of his speeches (not debate answers, but full blown speeches)?

Was it a debate answer or a speech where he said he would be stronger on gay rights than Ted Kennedy? :p

NTTAWWT!

wazu
12-12-2007, 07:16 PM
Romney is going to have zero taxes?!?

I'm not saying that. I just liked the overall philosophy about not spending tax dollars to do "good". The fact that he called Huckabee out for it the way he did showed that he at least grasps the concept. A surprising number of Republicans do not.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-12-2007, 08:30 PM
When I see him the first thing that pops in my head is that were he not born into wealth he'd probably currently be working at a Kay Jewelers.

Seems like a car salesman to me.

Mr. Kotter
12-12-2007, 08:53 PM
When I see him the first thing that pops in my head is that were he not born into wealth he'd probably currently be working at a Kay Jewelers.

Seems like a car salesman to me.

Though I'd still vote for him over several candidates, that is a very accurate and astute observation.....I've had an idea for a thread related to that kicking around in my head for a bit now, maybe I'll spring it later. :hmmm:

patteeu
12-12-2007, 08:59 PM
When I see him the first thing that pops in my head is that were he not born into wealth he'd probably currently be working at a Kay Jewelers.

Seems like a car salesman to me.

Why would a car salesman be working at Kay Jewelers? :p

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-12-2007, 09:12 PM
Why would a car salesman be working at Kay Jewelers? :p

They are the same *types*.

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2007, 08:45 AM
They are the same *types*.

... like cold-calling insurance sales folks too.

Cochise
12-13-2007, 08:53 AM
Why would a car salesman be working at Kay Jewelers? :p

Probably not much difference in the skill sets. Selling people overpriced junk they're going to finance and can't afford anyway.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 10:00 AM
Probably not much difference in the skill sets. Selling people overpriced junk they're going to finance and can't afford anyway.
What? You don't like gems?
Kay's is not overpriced for what you're getting. You get what you pay for.
Nor is Tiffany's...haven't you noticed the higher quality?

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 10:18 AM
What? You don't like gems?
Kay's is not overpriced for what you're getting. You get what you pay for.
Nor is Tiffany's...haven't you noticed the higher quality?
Granted, I'm a dude, but the very idea of jewelry screams overpriced.
But then I don't place any value on what it hawks. I can appreciate the artistry. I can appreciate the durability of a diamond and the stability of gold.
But it's still 'what it's worth' because the price tag says that's what it's worth. To an extent it's guided by the cost or procurement, but it's utility is adornment, which I place little value on, at least in comparision to the thousands it costs.
For me, jewelry is just a hard shiny beanie baby.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 10:19 AM
What? You don't like gems?
Kay's is not overpriced for what you're getting. You get what you pay for.
Nor is Tiffany's...haven't you noticed the higher quality?

Speaking of gems, my anniversary is coming up. Like most women, my wife likes jewelry. Last year I got her jewelry. This year I'm thinking about getting her an iPhone. She doesn't really need an iPhone, but she thinks they are cool, she does need a new phone of some type, and we've already decided that she's going to get a new phone sometime in the next month or so. Initially I was thinking that it's hard to justify the expense of an iPhone, but last night as I was thinking about it, I rationalized that it's kind of like buying her a more practical form of jewelry. What do you think?

Cochise
12-13-2007, 10:40 AM
Oh, man I read a great write-up on "investment diamonds" a while back, and what many people have experienced if they buy loose diamonds or ever try to sell diamonds. It was quite interesting.


I have a friend who got married, and he and his wife opted for the Cubic Z even though they are pretty well off. It was "hey we can get a big rock" or "hey we can furnish our house". Easy decision.

She doesn't have any sisters, unfortunately.

Adept Havelock
12-13-2007, 10:42 AM
For me, jewelry is just a hard shiny beanie baby.

Nice assessment.

Diamonds are pretty, but I find Buckyballs a far more interesting use of Carbon.

Speaking of gems, my anniversary is coming up. Like most women, my wife likes jewelry. Last year I got her jewelry. This year I'm thinking about getting her an iPhone. She doesn't really need an iPhone, but she thinks they are cool, she does need a new phone of some type, and we've already decided that she's going to get a new phone sometime in the next month or so. Initially I was thinking that it's hard to justify the expense of an iPhone, but last night as I was thinking about it, I rationalized that it's kind of like buying her a more practical form of jewelry. What do you think?

Could you get a small gemstone and mounting put on the Iphone?

patteeu
12-13-2007, 10:51 AM
Could you get a small gemstone and mounting put on the Iphone?

I suppose I could, but I'm not sure she'd be very impressed by that combo. Along that same line of thinking, I could buy her two iPhones, attach a hoop to each and tell her they're earrings. ;)

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 11:19 AM
What do you think?
I think it's an insult for a sentimental affair.
At least you're not a cheap azz though!

Geeeesh! Men just don't get it.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 11:23 AM
Granted, I'm a dude, but the very idea of jewelry screams overpriced.
But then I don't place any value on what it hawks. I can appreciate the artistry. I can appreciate the durability of a diamond and the stability of gold.
But it's still 'what it's worth' because the price tag says that's what it's worth. To an extent it's guided by the cost or procurement, but it's utility is adornment, which I place little value on, at least in comparision to the thousands it costs.


Perfect example of what Ludwig von Mises calls the subjective valuing that goes on in a market.

For me, jewelry is just a hard shiny beanie baby.

ROFL

Maybe this is an idea if they're made from Swarovski Crystals.

Adept Havelock
12-13-2007, 11:26 AM
I suppose I could, but I'm not sure she'd be very impressed by that combo. Along that same line of thinking, I could buy her two iPhones, attach a hoop to each and tell her they're earrings. ;)

LMAO

Just get one, put it on a necklace, and tell her it's a pendant. :p

patteeu
12-13-2007, 11:26 AM
I think it's an insult for a sentimental affair.
At least you're not a cheap azz though!

Geeeesh! Men just don't get it.

My 10 year old girl thinks I should get her a rose and a box of chocolates. My 13 year old girl thinks I should arrange to have a priest available and take her to renew our vows (which we've already done once). I rolled my eyes at both of them. I'm raising a couple of monsters. I pity the men who end up with them. :)

patteeu
12-13-2007, 11:27 AM
LMAO

Just get one, put it on a necklace and tell her it's a pendant. :shrug:

That's the best idea yet. haha

patteeu
12-13-2007, 11:28 AM
WWMRD?

I bet Mitt Romney would know what to get for his wife for their anniversary.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 11:33 AM
WWMRD? Okay what's this one mean?

Pat, if you were raising a bunch of monsters I don't think a simple rose and chocolate is extragavant. As for a priest, to renew vows that's very unmaterialistic and spiritual...says a lot about her values. They don't sound like monsters to me. It sounds like a very nice family.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 11:43 AM
WWMRD? Okay what's this one mean?

Pat, if you were raising a bunch of monsters I don't think a simple rose and chocolate is extragavant. As for a priest, to renew vows that's very unmaterialistic and spiritual...says a lot about her values. They don't sound like monsters to me. It sounds like a very nice family.

WWMRD? = What Would Mitt Romney Do?

I know they aren't monsters. I was just implying that they are girly and that they are going to make it tough on the guys they end up with because they will want girly things instead of pragmatic things.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 11:54 AM
I was just implying that they are girly and that they are going to make it tough on the guys they end up with because they will want girly things instead of pragmatic things.
:huh:
How is chocolate and a rose not pragmatic? Or renewing vows. I assure you, if you know what's good for you, these things as are ideals, love and romance are pragmatic if you live with a woman.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 12:01 PM
:huh:
How is chocolate and a rose not pragmatic? Or renewing vows. I assure you, if you know what's good for you, these things as are ideals, love and romance are pragmatic if you live with a woman.

This is the kind of thing I anticipate my girls saying when they grow up. :)

mlyonsd
12-13-2007, 12:04 PM
I suppose I could, but I'm not sure she'd be very impressed by that combo. Along that same line of thinking, I could buy her two iPhones, attach a hoop to each and tell her they're earrings. ;)

She must really have big ears if you think they could each hold up an iPhone.

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 12:07 PM
:huh:
How is chocolate and a rose not pragmatic? Or renewing vows. I assure you, if you know what's good for you, these things as are ideals, love and romance are pragmatic if you live with a woman.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Pragmatic means having a tangible practical use, like an Iphone, or a blender, or a new car.
It's a subset of value. Value can have many definitions, including reaffirming ideals, or indicating affinity. But pragmatic is utilitarian value.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 12:12 PM
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Pragmatic means having a tangible practical use, like an Iphone, or a blender, or a new car.
That's how I was using it..."tangible, practical, use." For instance chocolate is an aphrodesiac.

But pragmatic is utilitarian value.

That's what I'm sayin'...time to go back to Mars guys. :p

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 12:13 PM
She must really have big ears if you think they could each hold up an iPhone.
He's a Republican. They like elephants.


J/k pat. :)

patteeu
12-13-2007, 12:20 PM
She must really have big ears if you think they could each hold up an iPhone.

The weird thing is that she can't hear a word I'm saying when she doesn't want to.

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 12:21 PM
That's how I was using it..."tangible, practical, use." For instance chocolate is an aphrodesiac.



That's what I'm sayin'...time to go back to Mars guys. :p
Vocabulary nuance is a fading avocation.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 12:27 PM
Especially between the genders.

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 12:32 PM
Especially between the genders.
Absolutely. Like when 'Venus' says, 'it seems like they're throwing this word 'pragmatic' around like it's a superior virtue. I must now craft an argument that the things I hold dear are pragmatic so they understand how important these things are to me.'

pragmatic edifies the physical, idealistic edifies the mind. Neither is inherently better than the other, just different.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 12:52 PM
Sigh!

You still don't get it. It IS practical if it's important to her.
This is an emotional relationship.

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2007, 12:56 PM
Sigh!

You still don't get it. It IS practical if it's important to her.
This is an emotional relationship.

A better perspective on the Mars-Venus model is the "Love and Respect" model (Dr. Emerson Eggerichs)....if you are really interested in understanding gender communication issues. It's Christian based, but very....pragmatic. Seriously.

:)

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 01:01 PM
Sigh!

You still don't get it. It IS practical if it's important to her.
This is an emotional relationship.
I didn't say it didn't have value. It just doesn't have pragmatic value. Psychic value can be just as valuable or often much more valuable, but it's a different TYPE of value.

Pragmatic value means if can assist you in everyday physical, tangible tasks.
Psychic value means it edifies your mental or emotional state.

And its not a gender thing. If the husband loves loves LOVES decorative beer steins, and the wife gets him one and it makes him all misty and gets his loins moist, the works. Unless he actually drinks from those steins regularly it's not a pragmatic gift.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 01:12 PM
I didn't say it didn't have value. It just doesn't have pragmatic value. Psychic value can be just as valuable or often much more valuable, but it's a different TYPE of value.

Pragmatic value means if can assist you in everyday physical, tangible tasks.
Psychic value means it edifies your mental or emotional state.

And its not a gender thing. If the husband loves loves LOVES decorative beer steins, and the wife gets him one and it makes him all misty and gets his loins moist, the works. Unless he actually drinks from those steins regularly it's not a pragmatic gift.


I disagree that pragmatic only means to physical...it's whatever works for the relationship including smoothing out the rough spots. I don't think this is an argument that you and I will ever resolve BL...since you just have a guy view on it. It would be impractical to proceed...even if the lawyer in you would like to win the case.

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 01:15 PM
I disagree that pragmatic only means to physical...it's whatever works for the relationship including smoothing out the rough spots. I don't think this is an argument that you and I will ever resolve BL...since you just have a guy view on it. It would be impractical to proceed...even if the lawyer in you would like to win the case.
I don't have a 'guy's' view of the definition of the word. I have an English speaker's view.
And for all the 'lawyer's drive' snarking, you made sure to exit scene with your best laid out that I'm some sexist lout for giving words their proper meaning.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 01:22 PM
And for all the 'lawyer's drive' snarking, you made sure to exit scene with your best laid out that I'm some sexist lout for giving words their proper meaning.
Whooa! If you got that out it, then you missed my intentions totally. This whole thing started out TIC, for fun with pat...all the way through. I thought you were too. For heavens sake, I was teasing you. I was laughing. You took it wrong.

But if you really want to be serious about it....the English definition of "practical" is: what's useable or can be practiced. Chocolate can be eaten. Renewing vows has a practical application as a reminder of things. I think that fits both sides pov just fine. That each gender has different needs and uses for such things was not taken by me as sexist at all. It just shows how different the genders are on such things.

Cochise
12-13-2007, 01:26 PM
I don't have a 'guy's' view of the definition of the word. I have an English speaker's view.
And for all the 'lawyer's drive' snarking, you made sure to exit scene with your best laid out that I'm some sexist lout for giving words their proper meaning.

1. Accuse
2. Redefine
3. Insult

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 01:28 PM
Whooa! If you got that out it, then you missed my intentions totally. This whole thing started out TIC, for fun with pat...all the way through. I thought you were too. For heavens sake, I was teasing you. I was laughing. You took it wrong.

But if you really want to be serious about it....the English definition of "practical" is: what's useable or being practiced. Chocolate can be eaten. Renewing vows has a practical application as a reminder of things. I think that fits both sides pov just fine.
Sorry, I try not to be strident on grammar and vocabulary stuff. But it gets me where my goat is tethered when people slough off my explanations are 'just not understanding'

As simply as I can put it;

The distinction between pragmatic and psychic value is pragmatic pertains to that which is outside the mind, while psychic value pertains to value which is in the mind.

Chocolate could have a pragmatic value if it were given purely for it's nutritional value. But reminding you of what's important [vows] or reminding you that you are loved and treasured [flowers, chocolate, beer steins] is a mental value. Even the aphrodisiac qualities concern mental state.

Again, they're both valuable, just in different ways.

If anything, on the occasion of an anniversary, a pragmatic gift is INFERIOR to a psychically valuable gift. Your gift in that situation is commemorating a psychic connection between the two of you, and pragmatic gift runs the risk of giving short shrift to that connection.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 01:31 PM
Like I said I was just having fun with the whole thing. You took it far more serious than intended.

All, I was saying in the end, was that it's not an argument that is resolvable was all. It was not intended as an insult at all...just that the genders could see it differently since they don't seem to come to terms on certain things ever. For instance your claim that something having only mental realm value as not being practical. So is education. Practical is anything that can be used.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 01:31 PM
Eureka! I'm getting my wife a decorative beer stein!

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 01:32 PM
Like I said I was just having fun with the whole thing. You took it far more serious than intended.

All, I was saying in the end, was that it's not an argument that is resolvable was all. It was not intended as an insult at all...just that the genders could see it differently since they don't seem to come to terms on certain things ever.
And my point is that it's eminently resolvable, if the definitions of the terms being used are properly understood.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 01:35 PM
And my point is that it's eminently resolvable, if the definitions of the terms being used are properly understood.

That's where I disagree...based on my gender.
Or not when it comes to the genders. There may be some exceptions but generally speaking, it isn't. Our little exchange is evidence of that. You're being a guy. Guy's are more goal orientated then women. Whic is okay...nothign wrong with that. They HAVE to resolve such things. I say this is NOT always practical...but actually impractical. :p

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 01:40 PM
'Er getting back to Mitt. I saw him on TV with his wife the night they had the candidates on with their wives. Even Judy, the homewrecker with Rudy. :p

Anyhow, his wife had, I think it was ms which is in remission. I was really touched by how practical he was by his support of her through it even when she was in a wheelchair. He told her that he still loved her despite that. I thought that was very selfless of him. He didn't just cast her aside.

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 01:40 PM
That's where I disagree...based on my gender.
Or not when it comes to the genders. There may be some exceptions but generally speaking, it isn't. Our little exchange is evidence of that. You're being a guy. Guy's are more goal orientated then women. Whic is okay...nothign wrong with that. They HAVE to resolve such things. I say this is NOT always practical...but actually impractical. :p
I'm 'being a guy' in the sense that, 'if I'm wrong I'm wrong, and if I'm right I'm right.'
Likewise, your 'being a gal' in the sense that, 'I'm right, and if you don't understand that I'm right then you just don't understand what I'm saying, and we'll just drop it with the understanding that I'm still right.'

;)

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 01:42 PM
'Er getting back to Mitt. I saw him on TV with his wife the night they had the candidates on with their wives. Even Judy, the homewrecker with Rudy. :p

Anyhow, his wife had, I think it was ms which is in remission. I was really touched by how practical he was by his support of her through it even when she was in a wheelchair. He told her that he still loved her despite that. I thought that was very selfless of him. He didn't just cast her aside.
My head is going to EXPLODE.
Did he really say 'despite?'

Wow, if so.

That smack of Mat Dillon in Something about Mary. "Gosh I love him, even if he's a retard."

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 01:43 PM
:thumb: You got it!

See how that ended the fireworks. Very practical! ROFL

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 01:45 PM
:thumb: You got it!

See how that ended the fireworks. Very practical! ROFL
My dad taught me how to end every argument with a woman.

Yes dear.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 01:45 PM
My head is going to EXPLODE.
Did he really say 'despite?'

Wow, if so.

That smack of Mat Dillon in Something about Mary. "Gosh I love him, even if he's a retard."

Well, let me correct that, I don't recall him using the word "despite"...I just got from his statements that he didn't allow her illness to drive a wedge into his affinity for his wife. I meant "despite" as in it never changed his feelings for her. I thought that was awesome.

OTH, Rudy just does away with his and gets replacements. I think little things like that say something about a person's character.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 01:49 PM
My dad taught me how to end every argument with a woman.

Yes dear.
Very good advice. The thing is, though, is that such advice is for actual use in life. Which makes it practical. o:-)