On Losing Votes

Charles Johnsonfollow me on twitter
Opinion • Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 5:30 pm PST • Views: 382

This is a thought-provoking essay by Paul Hsieh, a practicing physician in Denver and long-standing Republican voter: How the GOP lost my vote.

After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, “Why did we lose?”

I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.

I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

But I didn’t vote for a single Republican in 2008. I’ve become increasingly alienated by the Republicans“ embrace of the religious ”social conservative“ agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a ”wall of separation“ between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.

Instead, the government’s role is to protect each person’s right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party’s embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous.

Read the whole thing…

(Hat tip: Frogmarch.)

Advertisement

1443 comments

  • Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 FightingBack  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:33:07pm

Ok, Doc. Get ready for Socialized Medicine.
The Commissars will tell you what to prescribe.

2 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:33:10pm
Hence, I believe the Republican Party should choose the first path - the path of limited government, separation of church and state, and protection of individual rights.

Exactly!

3 dmandman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:33:22pm

I guess this guy never heard of the phrase "throwing the Baby out with the bath water".

4 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:34:06pm

Subtitle: "How I helped elect Barack 0bama"

5 Karridine  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:34:34pm
"The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a ”wall of separation“ between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines."

Right on!

6 OldLineTexan  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:34:55pm

Very astute. Enjoy Obama.

7 experiencedtraveller  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:35:02pm
Our system is a testament to the genius of the Founding Fathers, who recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But if life begins at conception then that life enjoys the same rights that you do.

8 x-wing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:35:36pm

What?

9 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:35:38pm

re: #1 FightingBack

Ok, Doc. Get ready for Socialized Medicine.
The Commissars will tell you what to prescribe.

And what does your comment have to do with the article? I think there is a lot more in his article than the fact that he voted for Obama.

10 Tigger2005  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:35:52pm

I agree with much of what he's saying, but I don't buy his argument as an excuse for not voting Republican this year. John McCain was hardly a "conservative" candidate, and Sarah Palin doesn't push her beliefs on anybody.

The next four years could very well determine the fate of our Republic, and Obama is not the man to lead us during this critical time. We are now in deep, deep shit. This was not the time to bail on the Republican ticket. We don't have the luxury of making this kind of mistake.

11 callahan23  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:36:42pm

re: #10 Tigger2005

I agree with much of what he's saying, but I don't buy his argument as an excuse for not voting Republican this year. John McCain was hardly a "conservative" candidate, and Sarah Palin doesn't push her beliefs on anybody.

The next four years could very well determine the fate of our Republic, and Obama is not the man to lead us during this critical time. We are now in deep, deep shit. This was not the time to bail on the Republican ticket. We don't have the luxury of making this kind of mistake.

Right on!

12 Karridine  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:37:35pm

re: #10 Tigger2005

Strongly agree.

If only political solutions could solve attitudinal problems... and the disunity that engenders them!

13 Occasional Reader  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:38:19pm
Instead, the government’s role is to protect each person’s right to practice his or her religion as a private matter

a-HEM, or lack thereof.

Thank you.

14 FightingBack  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:38:29pm

Republican, my hat. Most Docs are looking for Single Payer systems (ie Uncle Sam) so that they don't have to be clever business owners, or worry about competition. They'd rather work for a paycheck and leave the small business admin to someone "in the clinic." More help available too, if there's no bottom line to worry about. And going home at 4:30PM sounds good.

15 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:38:42pm

I don't see this as an excuse for not voting -- I see it as a reason why he voted for the Democrats. We all have our own personal tipping points.

16 x-wing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:39:05pm

re: #10 Tigger2005


That's what I was thinking. I didn't see the same campaign the good Doctor is talking about.

17 Wookieelips  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:39:34pm

While I agree, I wish this person had thought about how limited our freedoms will be if we cave to our enemies.
They are all for theocracy and monitoring every aspect of a person's life through enforcement of religion.

Sure, there are many things I disagree in the Republican party's platform, but good lord I'm not about to embrace the loony left because of it!

18 FightingBack  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:39:53pm

re: #9 Walter L. Newton

And what does your comment have to do with the article? I think there is a lot more in his article than the fact that he voted for Obama.

Maybe, but he got Obama elected didn't he?

19 LoFlyer  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:39:57pm

Read the article and Tsieh has no clue as to what won this election. I have my ideas and you all know my thoughts on the MSM!

20 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:40:09pm

Interesting this was written by a doctor.

I spoke with a republican doctor not long ago who mentioned one of the gravest ills going on in this country no one seems to discuss is the wall of separation going up between doctors and their patients due to regulations between insurance and the government. He's seeing this going on with both parties, and he's pretty disgusted by it.

21 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:40:15pm

re: #10 Tigger2005
Yes we are in deep, deep shit and the next four years are not going to be fun. I am about to hit 53 and seriously need to start (again) thinking about my future.

22 coloradobuff  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:40:57pm

This is the problem with people who are interested in a single overriding issue. (Abortion is one of those issues, too.) They tend to vote based on that issue regardless of the more pressing problems we face. Wonderful, just wonderful.

23 FightingBack  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:41:08pm

re: #15 Charles

Very interesting, if true.

24 warlock  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:41:30pm

Banning abortion would be a bad thing? Do you remember your Hippocratic Oath, doctor?

25 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:42:03pm
26 redc1c4  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:42:13pm

re: #10 Tigger2005

I agree with much of what he's saying, but I don't buy his argument as an excuse for not voting Republican this year. John McCain was hardly a "conservative" candidate, and Sarah Palin doesn't push her beliefs on anybody.

The next four years could very well determine the fate of our Republic, and Obama is not the man to lead us during this critical time. We are now in deep, deep shit. This was not the time to bail on the Republican ticket. We don't have the luxury of making this kind of mistake.

then we should have nominated a Republican instead of a Democrat and left all the religious BS out of the platform.

instead, we alienated lots of people who aren't into the hard core social issues, and who didn't see any difference between McLame and the Zero, except that Juggy was the "oooh...shiny!" candidate.

27 Summer Seale  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:42:31pm

I sadly say that I could not agree more with that article.

And with all the latest talk and blogging going on about throwing out non-social conservatives (AKA...a lot of non-religious people such as myself), I find myself wondering if I should just preempt the purge.

Something in me keeps wanting to fight against it, but another part of me is so tired about arguing with social conservatives that this is not supposed to be a religiously Christian nation in the law books. There are so many lies and fabrications about the founding fathers and their religious zeal that I no longer even care much to discuss it, just as I no longer care much to try to defend against the lies of the creationists. Part of me wants to watch them all throw out the non-religious from the party and then self-implode. That scares me a lot, but I feel it's about to happen on some level anyway.

28 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:42:33pm

(an update on an essay I composed before the election)

Critical thinking skills disappeared among the general populace in this past election cycle. But this is not surprising, if you look closely at what is happening in certain areas of our society.

High schools and colleges do not teach anymore. They lecture only on possibilities, and require that information to be filtered through a "global" mind-set. So, facts do not matter, only the effect that knowledge has on the whole world. Agenda's drive knowledge now, not truth.

Where as technology is wonderful, we have misused it, and have let it isolate each other. You cannot learn critical thinking skills if you have no interaction with other humans. The virtual world that we have surrounded ourselves with can be molded to please us, and the actualities of life can be eliminated simply by changing the background wallpapers on our computer screens and cell phones.

And no, we should not become Luddites, but advancement requires not compromising what makes us human, makes us moral and makes us different than the rest of the life on this planet.

And our media has totally jumped the shark. In almost no uncertain terms, they have exposed themselves as totally bias and working as a fifth column in our society, working for the left. The media does nothing to foster critical thinking, only lock-step acceptance of their "superior" reportage.

It is evident that the left has been working diligently over the last 50 years to remove critical thinking in our country. Our last election has accomplished two things, one bad, one good.

The downside is it's apparent that we may end up with a Euro-styled socialism entrenched in our politics. The upside is the left has tipped their hand, big time.

We have now seeing the infiltration of the radical left in our educational institutions and in our community level organizations. We now have a clear view of how money and influence trickles down to the left, money from sources openly and publicly hostile to our democratic republic way of governance. We have even been given some insight how the radical left is supported by sources outside of our borders.

In a sense, the radical left has come out of the closet. They are not hiding anymore. And here are some of the new rules.

You are racist if you do not agree with the left. If the left doesn’t like your questions, they cut you off from any interviews with them. The main stream media is worked with the left to suppress information, such as audio and video tapes of the presidential candidate cavorting with terrorists and socialists, and you have accepted that. Children are being taught to question their parents. We saw videos of young men in military gear, stomping to chants about the Democrat candidate, kindergarten aged children singing praises to him, and that is good. We have seen a multi-pronged character assassinations of Palin and her family, of a common plumber because he asked the wrong questions. We saw campaign posters designed in the style of communist revolutionary art. And we have heard remarks from religious leaders, praising the Democrat candidate and attributing to him a Christ-like persona.

Critical thinking skills are not needed anymore. The radical left, educational institutes, the main stream media and mind-numbing technology are now telling us the who, what, where, when and how's. Sit back, smile and enjoy the trip to Euro-socialism.

Walter in Golden, Co.

29 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:42:39pm

I struggle with this and I am not the religious right. I agree we should have the freedom to be religious, or not be. But I don't believe this means no pledge, no prayer before sports, no Christmas Trees or no Menorahs in public places. There is another extreme, too. If you don't wish to partake in the pledge, don't. But please don't stop the rest of us who would like too.

Abortion isn't why we lost either. Lack of education on what abortion really means may have. I don't have a problem with extreme and rare cases - I wouldn't outlaw abortion in its entirety. I would, however, not be willing to support a "just not the right time" abortion. For the record, many women suffer mentally after wards. Planned Parenthood glosses over this.

As for gay marriage? Thank you, but no. Just as I support freedom FROM religion, so do I support freedom from a lifestyle that is an antithesis from what I believe is morally right being shoved in my face. That said, I could give a rat's behind what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their boudoir.

30 Fredlike  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:42:39pm

The atheistic left had no problem voting for the religious liberal Obama. If you want a conservative vote for a conservative. If you can find one that shares your particular religious views vote for them. Voting liberal is not going to help you. I will grant that McCain was not a good conservative but he was better than Obama.

31 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:42:49pm

McCain was one of the few Republicans in the Senate who stood against Pres Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research...

McCain has always fought crazy expansion of government spending

His vote against Musgrave makes sense. She was extremely annoying on social issues. I don't live in CO any more, so I don't know about Shaffer. But this is a guy who should have voted for McCain even with Palin but against Musgrave according to his stated goals.

32 FightingBack  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:43:22pm

re: #20 Sharmuta

All those insurance companies are "government regulated." And who lets them get away with all this?

33 Max Darkside  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:43:45pm

I used to be Republican. Now I'm a non-affiliated conservative, ever since the Republicans put up essentially a Democrat for President, we have a Democrat Governor who calls himself a Republican (Minnesota) and when I heard from a delegate that the MN Republican Convention in Rochester was rigged.

Bub-bye. Put up a conservative with my core values and just maybe I might vote for HER.

34 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:44:06pm

re: #24 warlock

Banning abortion would be a bad thing? Do you remember your Hippocratic Oath, doctor?

Technically speaking, it is entirely possible that he never too the Hippocratic Oath. It isn't considered obligatory anymore. Also, there are several different versions.

35 redc1c4  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:44:23pm

re: #24 warlock

Banning abortion would be a bad thing? Do you remember your Hippocratic Oath, doctor?

why should abortion be a Federal issue? why should a national party have a stance on it?

36 Joan Not of Arc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:44:24pm

By not voting or switching altogether, a voter may end up with an elected official he won't like at all.
For me, I don't mind "social" conservatives. Whatever one may think of their views, the social conservatives tend to stick to their beliefs. That says a lot when many politicians will go whichever way the wind blows.
Just my thoughts.

37 notutopia  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:44:54pm

Hence, I believe the Republican Party should choose the first path - the path of limited government, separation of church and state, and protection of individual rights.


Exactly!

38 Big Boots that's boots  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:45:15pm

Or perhaps the Republicans lost because it was McCain up against BHO. I wasn't old enough to vote for Reagan the first time but I still remember hearing plenty of "religious" talk at 17yrs old. The 2nd time Reagan ran I voted for him - still remember hearing plenty of "religious" talk and so on down the line when it comes to the GOP. This isn't something new to the GOP.

Is it going to be better if we will ever start to have to pay for abortions with our tax dollars?

I don't know if I would call him a "long standing" voter just because he voted "R" in 1996, 2000 & 2004. Possibly a young guy?

39 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:45:18pm

including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

abortion- let states decide
embryonic stem cell research-other stem cell sources are proving/will prove to yield successes in R&D
gay marriage- a manufactured right whose absence has led to all ills and zero positives in the civilization's deveolpment///(How did Prop 8 pass in California if not for the Religious Right's overwhelming majority?///)

Yep, all excellent reasons to put Dems in power, given their progressive agenda.

40 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:45:33pm

We got mauled by a RINO this cycle. (I was going to say gored, but that would have given the statement a whole different tone.)

41 Palandine  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:45:35pm
I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.
But I didn’t vote for a single Republican in 2008.

Congratulations, doc! Because of your ideological purity in not wanting to be associated with those evil people who believe in the sanctity of life and who would like to use federal funds for proven stem cell research before we start destroying life to do so, you voted for larger government, infringement of individual rights, socialism, weakness and equivocation in defense, and some of the most stringent gun-grabbing we have ever seen in this country.

I'd leave you to enjoy your ideological purity, but unfortunately, your choices affect me as well--we'll all be living with the consequences of your ideological purity for years to come. Salute!

42 Cathypop  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:45:40pm

re: #37 notutopia

If only they would stick to that path.

43 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:46:42pm

What I am confused about is the whole gay marriage thing. It wasn't only "conservatives" who passed Prop 8 in California, it was heavily supported by the black and hispanic communities. Who actually voted for Obama.

While I do agree with much of what the writer said, I think he is cutting off his nose to spite his face.

44 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:47:01pm

re: #24 warlock

Pushing women into unsanitary conditions would be better?

You can't even get a conservative red state like South Dakota to ban it- good luck with that nationally. It's a dead horse.

45 Max Darkside  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:47:58pm

re: #39 solomonpanting

embryonic stem cell research-other stem cell sources are proving/will prove to yield successes in R&D


AFAIK, there's no ban on embryonic stem cell research. You can do as much as you like. You just can't use Fed funds for it.

46 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:48:11pm
47 elcaro  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:48:18pm

Try winning an election without the religious right, Doctor Stupid!

48 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:48:24pm

re: #45 Max Darkside

AFAIK, there's no ban on embryonic stem cell research. You can do as much as you like. You just can't use Fed funds for it.


True. Thank you.

49 zato  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:48:51pm

I think W reached out to the religious right far more than McCain ever did. So, quite frankly, this guy sounds misled. In fact, it is very likely that a lot of fiscal conservatives may have fallen for the mainstream media's continuous downplaying or obfuscation of the Democrats/Barry's radically leftist fiscal tendencies. A lot of people are conflicted because of their fiscally conservative and socially liberal positions... this is a case for a third party that appeals to those voters. But it would be tragic if anyone who values fiscal conservativeness over social issues ended up voting democrat. To those, I would hope that they move to Cuba or Venezuela and seek what they voted for... just not here at my expense or my nation's expense!

50 nbenhaim  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:49:01pm

this guy really an idiot. so based on these social conservative issues, and based on the pandering to the "religious right", you have chosen to give the most powerful job on Earth to a very liberal man with whom you disagree with on everything *except* social issues. As Prager says, this guy is a narcissist - "Since the party does not agree with me on every issue I will make the country worse. Take that, America. I am a little selfish baby"

And I keep going back to this totally ridiculous notion that it was the social conservatism that lost us the election. May I remind people for the thousandth time that California, a VERY BLUE state voted to ban gay marriage, and have it written in the constitution! And regarding stem cell research - isn't it just a ban on *federal* funding? correct me if I'm wrong. Also, GW Bush is a social conservative and has he done anything to ban abortion? Can people get over this?

Moral of the story is that thanks to narcissists like Paul Tsieh, we lost the election. So now, Paul, you'll get your abortion rights, and gay marriage, and stem cell research. But you'll also get increased war, less peace, the fairness doctrine, more crazy government bailouts, higher taxes, more money to the peace corps, a slick new government web site (WEB 2.0 DEWDSY!), worthless GREEN ENERGY jobs, NO MORE nuclear plants, no more missile defense program, ...should I keep going?

now i feel better.

51 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:49:12pm

re: #47 elcaro

I think the moral of this election might be "good luck winning elections without the fiscal conservatives, sucka".

52 FrogMarch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:49:21pm

Thank you for the Hat tip, Charles. I will extend to that tip to VodkaPundit - where I originally found the article.

The doc makes a few good points.

53 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:49:27pm
I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

But I didn’t vote for a single Republican in 2008.

So you vote for someone and a party that is antithetical to everything you hold dear and believe in.

54 Mich-again  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:49:39pm

Democrats have learned that America likes Politicians who make it a point to go to Church but then sleep through the services,

55 Long Nics are Looonnng  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:50:01pm

People are going to start arguing...so...

GO COWBOYS!

bbl.

56 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:50:04pm

re: #46 Iron Fist

Which is why I would never say "ALL" women. Sometimes it doesn't happen for years. Again, I won't say all, but many do.

57 FightingBack  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:51:03pm

I don't think Republican platforms caused the loss. The populace was carried away by a dream world and a dream candidate who promised them everything.
You can see reality by just looking at John McCain; and Sarah is as real as can be, too. This makes for bad TV.

58 samsoncc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:51:09pm

"...religious 'social conservative' agenda..."

One wonders why religious wasn't included in the quotation marks. Or is he implying there might be other reasons for being socially conservative? NAW! Couldn't be...

This guy is clueless, sorry Charlie...

59 Max Darkside  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:51:17pm

re: #48 solomonpanting

True. Thank you.

I just say that because the MSM POUNDS us continually that there is a "OMG ! A BAN I TELL YOU! on embryonic stem cell research !"

... when, really, there isn't. I doubt I can get Fed funds to build a church, but that doesn't mean churches are banned.

/MSM DOLTS

60 Ziggy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:51:40pm

Great, so the good Doctor would rather see President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reed. That does jive with his alleged conservative values. The religious right is a fear tactic played by Democrats and liberals. Stem Cell research is not banned, it's just not government funded. What's the worst thing that will happen if Roa v. Wade is overturned? It becomes a states rights issue (which it should be). I would vote to keep it legal in my state, but why not let others choose for themselves? Clearly the founding fathers were, for the most part, deeply religious and would not approve of the dramatic elimination of G-d in the public square. The complete removal of G-d from public life will be a resounding victory for the left and have an immensely negative impact on our society.

61 Macker  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:52:03pm

One thing which will "level" the playing field is: repeal McCain-Feingold.

62 Susan2  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:52:14pm

re: #1 FightingBack

Ok, Doc. Get ready for Socialized Medicine.
The Commissars will tell you what to prescribe.

They'll also tell you how much you're allowed to earn.

63 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:52:20pm
64 elandadem  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:52:30pm

Hope none of you ever need a doctor in Denver.

This one probably practices with leeches and bleeding as well.

65 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:52:31pm

re: #45 Max Darkside

AFAIK, there's no ban on embryonic stem cell research. You can do as much as you like. You just can't use Fed funds for it.

True . . . , why don't people understand this?

66 experiencedtraveller  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:52:50pm

re: #44 Sharmuta

You can't even get a conservative red state like South Dakota to ban it- good luck with that nationally.

Roe vs Wade was never voted on. Overturning Roe vs Wade and pushing the decision to the states is all that a lot of people ask.

67 CharlieBravo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:52:53pm

Reconfirms why I'll go to a doc if I'm shot or hit by a truck. For anything not equally life threatening I put them in the same category as unscrupulous auto mechanics.

68 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:53:03pm

re: #62 Susan2

They'll also tell you how much you're allowed to earn.

THAT will be the real shocker for a lot of people.

69 FightingBack  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:53:06pm

re: #62 Susan2

One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

70 Macker  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:53:16pm

re: #65 outsidephilly

True . . . , why don't people understand this?

Because there are people out there who believe in the Giant Government Tit.

71 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:53:17pm
72 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:53:23pm

re: #59 Max Darkside

I just say that because the MSM POUNDS us continually that there is a "OMG ! A BAN I TELL YOU! on embryonic stem cell research !"

... when, really, there isn't. I doubt I can get Fed funds to build a church, but that doesn't mean churches are banned.

/MSM DOLTS


I'm grateful for you raising that point.

73 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:53:24pm

Help?

I've just made this post at zombietime, moments ago.

But I have not yet publicized it. Before I do so, I request:

Do you have any suggestions/ideas/comments for this piece before I "go public" with it?

Is it worth pursuing? Any and all constructive criticism would be much appreciated. Post it here! Thanks.

Victory in Iraq Day

November 22, 2008

We won. The Iraq War is over.

I declare November 22, 2008 to be "Victory in Iraq Day." (Hereafter known as "VI Day.")


By every measure, The United States and coalition forces have conclusively defeated all enemies in Iraq, pacified the country, deposed the previous regime, successfully helped to establish a new functioning democratic goverment, and suppressed any lingering insurgencies. The war has come to an end. And we won.

What more indication do you need? An announcement from the outgoing Bush administration? It's not gonna happen. An annoucement from the incoming Obama administration? That's really not gonna happen. A declaration of victory by the media? Please. Don't make me laugh. A concession of surrender by what few remaining insurgents remain in hiding? Forget about it.

The moment has come to acknowledge the obvious. To overtly declare a fact that has already been true for quite some time now. Let me repeat:

WE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ

...etc.

74 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:53:24pm

re: #65 outsidephilly

True . . . , why don't people understand this?

Because the media says otherwise.

75 zato  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:53:26pm

re: #43 Intrepid

What I am confused about is the whole gay marriage thing. It wasn't only "conservatives" who passed Prop 8 in California, it was heavily supported by the black and hispanic communities. Who actually voted for Obama.

While I do agree with much of what the writer said, I think he is cutting off his nose to spite his face.

I suspect that a lot of people voted "Yes" for that proposition thinking that they were supporting the cause... intuitively, it just makes no sense that a liberal lefty state like CA would pass that prop. Just my wild guess and I could be wrong on this one.

76 Max Darkside  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:53:31pm

I don't see this election, or most really, based on religious values. I think the MSM pounds on religion constantly to try to make it go away.

77 Outrider  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:53:49pm

This "Doctor" is so full of himself it isn't even funny.

A person would think an educated individual, such as a Doctor, would be practiced in clear, concise, and critical thought. The idea that he would come around to thinking a "protest" vote which, unless he told people, no one would be aware of, is ludicrous. Not voting for a particular party because elements of the party believed a certain way and stated so, and a candidate was an evangelical Christian is such a stupid concept as to be beyond description.

He says, "I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans." So, because the Republicans "have chosen to embrace the Religious Right", he chooses to vote for the party and candidate that is the exact opposite of everything he philosophically believes in.

The man is a buffoon.

78 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:53:52pm

re: #66 experiencedtraveller

Roe vs Wade was never voted on. Overturning Roe vs Wade and pushing the decision to the states is all that a lot of people ask.

That's not what's in the Republican platform- it asks for a Constitutional ban. That's never going to happen. Never. It's a dead horse.

79 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:54:36pm

re: #53 FurryOldGuyJeans

Makes so much sense, doesn't it? Hey! I hate the RNC right now so sign me right up for those crazy tax increases! That'll show 'em! Why we are at it, let's gut that Military I so strongly believe in! Take that you Regeanites! Again I ask, if this is the case, why didn't McCain win by a landslide? He was no conservative BUT FOR his stance on the military and many fiscal policies.

I believe the RNC needs to embrace fiscal conservatives AND the majority of social conservatives, who are not the religious extremists as is being advertised. I wonder if this is the latest attempt by the left to pigeon hole social conservatives into foaming at the mouth religious types in an attempt to "prove" how scary the Right is.

80 ghost707  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:54:51pm

The religious right was running a candidate this year for President?
So I guess the doctor was ok with the Rev Wright religion of Obama's.

81 Summer Seale  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:54:57pm

re: #30 Fredlike

I'm an Atheist and I voted for McCain.

82 Max Darkside  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:55:19pm

/silence, as everyone runs over and squashes Zombie's server...

83 FightingBack  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:55:42pm

re: #67 CharlieBravo

Reconfirms why I'll go to a doc if I'm shot or hit by a truck. For anything not equally life threatening I put them in the same category as unscrupulous auto mechanics.

Ok, Ok, mechanics, but not unscrupulous ones. However, many want the government take-over of their industry, to put them out of their misery in trying to make it work. And they don't like competition, either. They're ready for the socialist dream.

84 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:55:44pm

re: #47 elcaro

Try winning an election without the religious right, Doctor Stupid!

It would be nice, wouldn't it.

85 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:56:14pm
86 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:56:25pm
87 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:56:35pm

re: #77 Outrider

This "Doctor" is so full of himself it isn't even funny.

A person would think an educated individual, such as a Doctor, would be practiced in clear, concise, and critical thought. The idea that he would come around to thinking a "protest" vote which, unless he told people, no one would be aware of, is ludicrous. Not voting for a particular party because elements of the party believed a certain way and stated so, and a candidate was an evangelical Christian is such a stupid concept as to be beyond description.

He says, "I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans." So, because the Republicans "have chosen to embrace the Religious Right", he chooses to vote for the party and candidate that is the exact opposite of everything he philosophically believes in.

The man is a buffoon.

This man is a TOTAL buffoon . . . , he practices what kind of medicine?

88 Outrider  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:56:54pm

re: #57 FightingBack

I don't think Republican platforms caused the loss. The populace was carried away by a dream world and a dream candidate who promised them everything.
You can see reality by just looking at John McCain; and Sarah is as real as can be, too. This makes for bad TV.

I agree. Republican stances did not lose the election. Lack of "fire" in McCain did not lose the election. We simply have more people living in urban centers that want to be on the wagon that many others are going to be pulling. I think we will see this in future elections as well, the urban centers will outnumber the rural/suburban areas. So go the votes.

89 Summer Seale  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:56:54pm

And what's worse is, I'm an Atheist who voted for McCain and now is being told all over the blogs that I am simply not "Republican enough".

Keep it up guys.

90 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:57:20pm
91 CharlieBravo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:58:03pm

re: #73 zombie

Peace? Winning? In that region?

[Link: www.mapsofwar.com...]

92 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:58:05pm

I have read this doctor's screed 3 times through and all I see is moby.

93 heidi586  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:58:07pm

re: #25 Iron Fist
I couldn't agree with you more! Well said.

94 Macker  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:58:22pm

re: #78 Sharmuta

That's not what's in the Republican platform- it asks for a Constitutional ban. That's never going to happen. Never. It's a dead horse.

And there's the problem...this issue need to be returned to the states, where there were some states which allowed abortions and some which did not.
That's what the overturning of Roe v. Wade would result in.

95 winston06  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:58:44pm

I am an Atheist myself and I don't like religions but plz don't turn the USA into another Canada or Europe.

96 Macker  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:58:50pm

re: #73 zombie

zombie...I'm game!

97 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:59:16pm
98 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:59:33pm

Now I've seen everything.

The remnants of Yes on Huckabee.

Is it getting weird enough yet?

99 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:59:55pm

re: #96 Macker

zombie...I'm game!

*cock* *BLAM*

100 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 5:59:59pm

re: #94 Macker

And there's the problem...this issue need to be returned to the states, where there were some states which allowed abortions and some which did not.
That's what the overturning of Roe v. Wade would result in.

Convince the religious right to let this part of the platform fall by the wayside.

101 Salem  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:00:03pm

Religious belief cannot be the basis for social legislation. That's all there is to it. AFAIC, social conservatives can talk to the hand.

102 winston06  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:00:13pm

re: #4 gmsc

ignorance led to Obama

103 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:00:18pm

re: #50 nbenhaim

May I remind people for the thousandth time that California, a VERY BLUE state voted to ban gay marriage, and have it written in the constitution!

Two comments in the past seven days? Ten total since March?

104 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:00:20pm

re: #73 zombie

yep . . . , I'm with you on this!

105 Karridine  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:00:25pm

re: #24 warlock

Banning abortion would be a bad thing? Do you remember your Hippocratic Oath, doctor?

American doctors have NOT taken the Hippocratic Oath for decades. Thank your AMA for that.

106 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:00:35pm

re: #51 Sharmuta

I think the moral of this election might be "good luck winning elections without the fiscal conservatives, sucka".

Actually, I think that's true. Sarah Palin brought in a great number of SoCons, so it wasn't the SoCons' fault that the election was lost.

It was the fiscal conservatives and the hard line closed borders believers who either voted for Obama or stayed at home who lost this one for republicans.

Plus, we had a candidate who could not wow the crowd at the top of the ticket. The bottom of the ticket could, but that wasn't enough.

We faced a perfect storm - ailing economy, unpopular incumbent, popular challenger who happened to be black...

/calling my neighbor tomorrow about how to get involved - he's been active in TN republican politics in the past...

107 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:00:40pm
108 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:00:53pm
109 Avery Bullard  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:01:04pm

Repubs lost because they abandoned the base tenets of the Reagan revolution.
(Limited government, low taxes, strong national defense and family values). The RINO's of GHWB and his son, GWB catered to the Rockefeller Republicans and the mushy middle, as a result, the Repubs became Democrat Light.

With BHO, the Repubs will take decades to recover. The upcoming amnesty for illegals will add millions to the Democratic Party. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas will go deep purple or outright blue. Couple that with new social spending on National Health care, and a new welfare state, the Republic as we knew it is gone.

Massive debt and the failure of American business to effectively compete on a global scale will force millions in to underemployed situations and the subsequent American standard of living will be the worse ever recorded.

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.

110 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:01:08pm

Go ahead and make snide remarks about this guy and his opinion. But it is you who are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I voted for McCain, but I didn't like it. Most of my extended family voted for the big 'O' for precisely the reasons mentioned. Does it make sense? NO. But that is a reality. (But not much in our political partisan world makes sense.)
We must focus on the individual liberties (and for some that means having the right to have an abortion).
We can focus on individual liberties, on fiscal conservative principles, on military preparedness, on defending our borders, on constitutionally limited government, on individual responsibility and begin winning again. Or we can argue for adherence to Social Conservative/Religious right agendas, and continue our losing ways.

111 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:01:19pm

Isn't there a case to be made that if the economy hadn't tanked, then McCain's lead may have held? I'm not a member of the Religious Right, but I'll never forgive them for sending the economy and our economic institutions into a nosedive./

112 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:01:37pm

I see a lot of people are angry at the voters who have been alienated or driven out of the party. They'll tell you why they left. You don't have to listen.

113 JohnSteele  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:01:51pm

The good doctor seems to be a bit confused. If I recall correctly the so-called "religious right" that he seems to denigrate so greatly played a much greater role in the 2000 and 2004 elections than in 2008. I can recall only fleeting "interference" by his much despised "religious right" in this election. In 2004 Dr. Dobson played a very significant role and I can barely recall anything but the briefest mention of him this year.

Although raised Catholic I am not a practicing anything but that does not stop me from finding abortion abhorent. I cannot explain why the good doctor chose to allow a Marxist to be elected to lead this great nation but his use of the "religious right" is a crutch; and a not very good one at that.

114 experiencedtraveller  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:01:57pm

re: #78 Sharmuta

That's not what's in the Republican platform- it asks for a Constitutional ban. That's never going to happen. Never. It's a dead horse.

So you negotiate. Saying we accept RvW is a dead horse.

115 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:02:04pm
116 jamie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:02:12pm

re: #24 warlock

Banning abortion would be a bad thing?

Yes. Assuming one isn't a Bible-thumping nut job.

117 jsulman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:02:12pm

I just finished reading Page Smith's two volume bio on John Adams. Anybody who says that our founding fathers believed a person's religion has no part in political discourse is ignorant. If they believed that freedom to practice ones religion means redefining marriage to include men with men and women with women, they are deluded, if they think that the left will not force upon this nation a "religion" far worse than anything a theocratic right-winger nut could conjure up then they are beyond hope.

118 FightingBack  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:02:58pm

The Good Doctor is a socialist. He's tired of the rat race and would like a little snooze under the government umbrella. re: #87 outsidephilly

I'm guessing he's not a surgeon.

119 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:03:11pm

re: #98 Charles

Now let's talk about that freak (no disrespect to freaks). If the religious maniacs ran our party, wouldn't he have been the candidate o'choice? But he wasn't. Why? Because he is a scheister. We had crapola for candidates to chose from this go round, and the left took full advantage of being able to dazzle with BS.

120 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:03:13pm

re: #98 Charles

The remnants of Yes on Huckabee.


Steve Howe, John Anderson and Rick Wakeman?

121 LynnfromNZ  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:03:28pm

Boy, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. What a moron.

From my view I don't see where Christians in america have particularly prevented any law-abiding citizen from doing anything they feel like, but i certainly see a LOT of anti-Christian social legislation.

122 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:03:46pm

re: #112 Killgore Trout

I'm not angry, just a bit opinionated.

123 jamie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:03:55pm

re: #112 Killgore Trout

I see a lot of people are angry at the voters who have been alienated or driven out of the party. They'll tell you why they left. You don't have to listen.

This is what I don't get--most people have figured out that simply writing off those who left a political party as being wrong is a sure way to stay in the minority.

124 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:04:01pm
125 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:04:04pm

re: #106 Intrepid

I think the moral of this election might be "good luck winning elections without the fiscal conservatives, sucka".

Actually, I think that's true.

It is true. This doctor's trying to tell you all that. Other fiscal conservatives are trying to say this! You can't piss off the fisc-cons either! Helllooo.

I think the factions in this party better figure out how to keep each other happy if we're ever going to see victory any time soon.

126 Occasional Reader  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:04:07pm

re: #81 Summer

I'm an Atheist and I voted for McCain.

Me, too.

127 Page  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:04:11pm

With all of the post-mortem election analysis trying to figure out why McCain lost, I think it is important to keep some things in mind:

- This election was set up in the Dems wheelhouse...A ridiculously unpopular incumbent, and a faltering economy.

- As Zombie's new post points out, the strength of McCain (national defense/Iraq) was off the table thanks to our victory.

- Unprecedented turnout among (naive) young voters, who went heavily to Obama

- The media completely, unabashedly in the tank for Obama

- A mostly lackluster campaign from McCain

- Oh, and Obama spent 1 BILLION dollars to buy the White House.

And with all those advantages, and all that money thrown around, he got himself a whopping 52% of the popular vote.

Things are not quite as bleak as they may seem (not yet, at any rate). We don't need to tear ourselves apart figuring out why we lost. The cards were stacked against us, and we didn't get completely wiped out.

128 Glaucon  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:04:13pm

This doc is a moby

129 ModernDayPrayer  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:04:24pm

This entire letter is written in straw. Just as idiotic as saying "every voter who voted against Obama is racist LOLZ!"

130 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:04:31pm

re: #97 Iron Fist

Because the MSM have portrayed Bush's position as though it banned embryonic stem cell research. People who were too busy, or too lazy, or whatever to educate themselves simply bought the media line, and voted accordingly. i don't think it is too far a strech to say that the lapdog media were the tipping point that gave the election to Obama.

He owes them big time.

. . . , I attend conferences for type 1 diabetes, the topic of advances with regards to Stem Cell research are presented by well known physicians. The funding for this research comes from others, like me, who see a need for this . . . , NOT from the government

131 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:04:35pm

re: #96 Macker

zombie...I'm game!

Great! When you post it on your blog, send me the link (as described in the essay), and I'll add you to the Blogroll of Honor!

132 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:05:25pm
133 Ziggy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:05:30pm

re: #98 Charles

Now I've seen everything.

The remnants of Yes on Huckabee.

Is it getting weird enough yet?


That was pathetic. Yes, in the round, was my first concert ever. Pity.

134 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:05:31pm

re: #104 outsidephilly

yep . . . , I'm with you on this!

That's two votes! I'm gaining a smidgen of confidence.

135 Abu Lahab  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:05:36pm

re: #73 zombie

I suggest adding an American and an Iraqi flag, small or big, I don't really know. I think it will be a good thing.

136 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:05:40pm

re: #81 Summer

I'm an Atheist and I voted for McCain.

re: #126 Occasional Reader

Me, too.

Same here!

137 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:06:01pm

re: #112 Killgore Trout

I see a lot of people are angry at the voters who have been alienated or driven out of the party. They'll tell you why they left. You don't have to listen.

They don't want to listen- they want to call names instead of listen.

I mean- don't ask what's wrong if you don't want to hear the answer.

138 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:06:14pm

re: #103 MandyManners

Two comments in the past seven days? Ten total since March?

ROFL...

139 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:06:22pm

re: #120 Killgore Trout

Steve Howe, John Anderson and Rick Wakeman?

Alan White and Rick Squire.

140 Karridine  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:06:26pm

re: #77 Outrider
Outrider, too many doctors today are VERY WEAK on "clear, concise, and critical thought." All too many of them have been twisted by pharmaceutical think-way, as in 'this symptom needs THIS medicine..." when clear, concise and critical thought might lead instead to, "Does this person have a Prozac deficiency? Then Prozac CANNOT be a healing agent. Why is this person bringing these elements, these symptoms into his/her life? What are the CAUSATIVE FACTORS? How can we support and enhance healing?"

There's BIG MONEY in pharmaceuticals, Outrider!

141 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:06:46pm

re: #115 Iron Fist

Looks good to me. The media will never admit that we won. A hundred years from now the media will still be flogging the QUAGMIRE dead horse.

That's exactly why I did it. Somebody had to win this war! If only by declaring it to be so!

142 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:07:04pm

re: #137 Sharmuta

If Obama does a passable job I will have no problems voting Dem in 2012. It doesn't cause me any trouble.

143 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:07:40pm

re: #134 zombie

That's two votes! I'm gaining a smidgen of confidence.

Can I do a mass e-mailing since I don't have blog?

144 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:07:51pm

re: #135 Abu Lahab

I suggest adding an American and an Iraqi flag, small or big, I don't really know. I think it will be a good thing.

Hmmm. Interesting idea. Thanks.

145 Salem  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:07:52pm

TTTHSOCON

146 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:08:36pm

re: #142 Killgore Trout

If Obama does a passable job I will have no problems voting Dem in 2012. It doesn't cause me any trouble.

In other news, water will be wet in 2012, and the sun will rise in the east in 2012.

147 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:08:36pm
148 Bumr50  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:08:44pm

re: #136 gmsc

There is a difference between atheism and antitheism.

149 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:08:49pm

re: #141 zombie

Its going on my Blog. All 12 of my readers will spread the word! Seriously, ArmyHusband will be thrilled to share this with his uniformed buddies.

150 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:09:23pm

re: #137 Sharmuta

They don't want to listen- they want to call names instead of listen. I mean- don't ask what's wrong if you don't want to hear the answer.

Yea, but have you read all the comments on this thread that have completely ignored the actual question at hand? They keep posting away as if there is nothing wrong, nothing to hear, nothing to address and nothing happened.

I've noticed Charles has been trying to make a calculated point since the election, the point on this thread, yet so many Lizards are whizzing right past the issue.

Sad.

151 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:09:42pm

re: #143 outsidephilly

Can I do a mass e-mailing since I don't have blog?

Of course! I am not the boss of your email!

152 Abu Lahab  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:09:51pm

re: #144 zombie

Well, I really like your blog and your priceless Mu archive.

153 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:09:54pm

re: #147 Iron Fist

Yeah, and that's the way it should be. I'm a diabetic, and my dad's got Parkinsons in addition to diabetes, and I think the Federal government's money should be better spent in other endevors. there are to many ethical questions in embryonic research, and those questions can never be settled.

yep, yep, yep! Are you type 1? Use a pump?

154 Tigger2005  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:10:03pm

re: #15 Charles

I don't see this as an excuse for not voting -- I see it as a reason why he voted for the Democrats. We all have our own personal tipping points.

I don't think it is nearly a good enough reason, Charles. For one thing, the Republicans hardly nominated a social conservative for president.

The choice was very clear in this election. One thing we could trust McCain/Palin to do was protect our country to the utmost of their ability. Frankly, this should have overridden every other consideration. Who do you trust to protect us more, McCain or Obama? (Not asking you, Charles, it's just a rhetorical question.) You can't fix what you see as problems in the Republican Party when you're struggling for survival in the economic collapse following the terrorist nuking of Manhattan.

155 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:10:05pm

re: #147 Iron Fist

I'm not so much wrapped up in the ethics here as I am the lack of private money jumping into this - I see money going toward alternative stem cell research. Follow the money.

156 ghost707  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:10:13pm

Well, when Obama institutes his universal healthcare and he tells the doctor that his paycheck is going to be smaller at the same time he will need to see more patients - to help keep the system affordable, oh and you are still going to have to pay those huge malpractice insurance payments, what will he say then?

You got what you wanted doc, don't blame Republicans.

157 JohnSteele  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:10:21pm

re: #75 zato

I suspect that a lot of people voted "Yes" for that proposition thinking that they were supporting the cause... intuitively, it just makes no sense that a liberal lefty state like CA would pass that prop. Just my wild guess and I could be wrong on this one.


I read Prop 8 after the fact (I'm not a California voter) and you'd have to be a complete moron not to understand what you were voting for. IMHO it was perfectly clear.

158 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:10:34pm

re: #149 ArmyWife

Its going on my Blog. All 12 of my readers will spread the word! Seriously, ArmyHusband will be thrilled to share this with his uniformed buddies.

Send me the link when you do so! By being included on the Blogroll of Honor, you'll get more readers!

159 frank14  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:10:35pm

This article is the typical Peggy Noonan crap. We can't have those Philistines in our blue blooded Republican Party. And certainly no graduates of a non-Ivy League college...what will I tell my friends at the cocktail parties? All these myopians forget that Reagan was an anti-abortion social conservative who attended Bel Air Pres. The party tried a liberal Republican this time and saw what happened- all of McCain's media buddies like Chris Matthews turned on him in a minute. Next time don't expect the media to like us. They never will.

160 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:10:41pm

re: #150 Walter L. Newton

Amen Walter!

161 experiencedtraveller  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:10:43pm

re: #127 Page

I agree with what you say but here:

- Unprecedented turnout among (naive) young voters, who went heavily to Obama

I understand the youth vote was very close to average? (Sorry no link...)

162 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:11:09pm
163 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:11:17pm

re: #150 Walter L. Newton

I think the Republican party has a long road to return. Even after they acknowledge the problem they have to cultivate new leaders, politicians, writers, thinkers, etc. It's going to take a while.

164 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:11:22pm

re: #152 Abu Lahab

Well, I really like your blog and your priceless Mu archive.

You mean the Mo Archive? What -- no fatwa against me? That a nice change of pace.

165 itellu3times  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:11:33pm

re: #142 Killgore Trout

If Obama does a passable job I will have no problems voting Dem in 2012. It doesn't cause me any trouble.

If.

166 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:11:34pm

re: #73 zombie

Excellent post, Zombie. One suggestion - you wrote, under the heading of "If we won why are there troops still in Iraq":

Does our victory mean that I advocate the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq? No. Wars may be won but postwar occupations generally don't end crisply and cleanly like that.

Perhaps the word "occupations" could be said in a way that doesn't hint at the US forces being "OCCUPIERS"?

That word has been a big source of contention.

/just a question/suggestion

167 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:11:34pm

re: #98 Charles

Now I've seen everything.

The remnants of Yes on Huckabee.

Is it getting weird enough yet?

Really?

Boston's Goudreau and Sheehan attended Huckabee rallies in New Hampshire. They played together, too.

168 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:11:40pm

re: #149 ArmyWife

Its going on my Blog. All 12 of my readers will spread the word! Seriously, ArmyHusband will be thrilled to share this with his uniformed buddies.

That's what I'm thinking! Our Military need to hear positive support like this!

169 Outrider  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:11:49pm

re: #110 Haverwilde

Go ahead and make snide remarks about this guy and his opinion. But it is you who are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I voted for McCain, but I didn't like it. Most of my extended family voted for the big 'O' for precisely the reasons mentioned. Does it make sense? NO. But that is a reality. (But not much in our political partisan world makes sense.)
We must focus on the individual liberties (and for some that means having the right to have an abortion).
We can focus on individual liberties, on fiscal conservative principles, on military preparedness, on defending our borders, on constitutionally limited government, on individual responsibility and begin winning again. Or we can argue for adherence to Social Conservative/Religious right agendas, and continue our losing ways.

Or better yet, we can compromise all conservative values and pander to anyone of voting age and win that way.
/

170 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:12:01pm

re: #157 JohnSteele

I read Prop 8 after the fact (I'm not a California voter) and you'd have to be a complete moron not to understand what you were voting for. IMHO it was perfectly clear.

Voters can be quite dumb when they work at it. Look at the whole hanging chad fiasco in 2000.

171 experiencedtraveller  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:12:10pm

Youth vote up 1% in 2008 election.

172 shane  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:12:22pm

I gotta tell ya, this is a hoax. I am an atheist, don't beleive in God at all. Totally think a woman should have the right to chose to kill her unborn baby. But I have never felt like the "religous right" is taking over my party. I have found lately, tax and spend republicans I can't support. But this is BS about the "religous right". Maybe it is just me, but can anyone really point to a concerted effort to make abortion illegal by the republican party? I know they stand against it, but when was the last time they actually proposed legislation against it? The spending habits have made me mad but I just don't see the huge push from the religous right this guy is talking about.

173 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:12:46pm

re: #151 zombie

Of course! I am not the boss of your email!

But you are sort-of, kind-of 'the boss' . . . !

174 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:12:54pm

re: #162 Iron Fist

Your vote isn't worth the price.


Yeah, that seems the consensus.

175 Osama Bin Asshat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:13:01pm

Abortion to me has nothing to do with religion...hence his whole essay rings hollow.

As well, I'm not sure I heard either candidate even bring up the issue of abortion...so what's this guy blathering about?

176 CharlieBravo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:13:04pm

re: #130 outsidephilly

Great to hear. Always wondered why the howl over no government funding for stem cell research considering it'll lead to dead men awakening - almost.

177 Bumr50  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:13:13pm

re: #163 Killgore Trout

In the information age? High hopes.

178 Drill_Thrawl  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:13:22pm

"...I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms -..."

And so he votes for someone who want's to increase govt., reduce your 1st and 2nd amendment rights, create a command economy with redistribution and cut the military.

Somehow the logic escapes me. Good luck with morals that Obama will impose on you.

179 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:13:34pm

re: #150 Walter L. Newton

I think it's much easier to see this doctor as a "moby" than it is to give his words credence and consider his point of view.

180 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:13:35pm

re: #127 Page
Things are not quite as bleak as they may seem (not yet, at any rate). We don't need to tear ourselves apart figuring out why we lost. The cards were stacked against us, and we didn't get completely wiped out.

Absolutely and totally agree with you: that the Zero didn't win by at least 20 points is nothing short of a miracle. We need to lose the moral agenda and get back to basic conservatism, and get a few people who know what this means and who have figured out HOW to get it done. Palin is a great example of this.

181 itellu3times  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:13:37pm
This is a thought-provoking essay by Paul Tsieh, a practicing physician in Denver and long-standing Republican vote.

He reads like a disappointed libertarian type, with a strong antireligious streak. Probably doesn't approve of the federal reserve, either - then again, I'm wondering about that now myself.

Whether intentionally or not, he's just a moby now.

182 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:13:44pm

re: #121 LynnfromNZ

Boy, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. What a moron.

From my view I don't see where Christians in america have particularly prevented any law-abiding citizen from doing anything they feel like, but i certainly see a LOT of anti-Christian social legislation.

Yes, and the notion that Right, or Religious Right, influences have led to social restrictions is one of the BIG LIES that has become gospel. I'm sure a list of Liberal/Dem restrictions, laws, mandates, increased taxes, speech codes, the bureaucracies that support them and the incredible waste of resources they generate far, far outweigh anything the RR has foisted upon the country.

183 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:13:52pm

re: #163 Killgore Trout

I think the Republican party has a long road to return. Even after they acknowledge the problem they have to cultivate new leaders, politicians, writers, thinkers, etc. It's going to take a while.

No problems here... crickets... whiz, there goes another no problem post... snap... another one... click on new comments... all the same... nothing...
/

184 FightingBack  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:14:03pm

re: #150 Walter L. Newton

Well, it's the vote that's bothering us. Because we weren't so in love with our candidate either, but we recognized the problems the winner will now cause. I agree that if a new voter's coalition is needed, then problems in the party will have to be addressed. But they could have been resolved after we secured the White House.

185 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:14:12pm
186 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:14:34pm

re: #150 Walter L. Newton

Really? Sharm made a good point, and we aren't totally on the same page with this issue. Wouldn't we be wise to listen to conservatives as a whole? Doesn't it seem the common ground of small government, large military, fiscally sound and family values should be what is heard? That is our majority, and that is what would win elections. Infighting is not going to help us in the least, nor is kowtowing to the left in an attempt to say "Look at us! We are liberal, too! We just spend less!"

187 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:14:38pm

re: #169 Outrider

Or better yet, we can compromise all conservative values and pander to anyone of voting age and win that way.
/

Read the post again for meaning:

We can focus on individual liberties, on fiscal conservative principles, on military preparedness, on defending our borders, on constitutionally limited government, on individual responsibility and begin winning again.

I do believe those are conservative values!

188 Bumr50  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:14:40pm

re: #178 Drill_Thrawl

That was the conclusion that I drew. His spite is what swung him.

189 notutopia  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:14:48pm

re: #14 FightingBack

Republican, my hat. Most Docs are looking for Single Payer systems (ie Uncle Sam) so that they don't have to be clever business owners, or worry about competition. They'd rather work for a paycheck and leave the small business admin to someone "in the clinic." More help available too, if there's no bottom line to worry about. And going home at 4:30PM sounds good.

Many, but not most. What many Docs seek is a reimbursement system that pays them for their work at fair market value. What the Gov. actually pays that Doc is a bare 45% or less, of that FMV. We would love to have more independent contracts and payor sources. The double edge sword of payor control here is that the contractors are now using the same reimbursement incentives as the Gov. to negotiate their rates of payment.

My husband and I both are from medical/MD families. 5 out of 8 siblings in two generations, and All of us are Conservative Republican voters, even though some of us are registered Independents. We all had issues with the Presidential candidates in this last election, and some of us are very concerned about the fate of the Republican party if it continues to maintain it's stance of conservative softness on the choice of it's presidential candidates.
Vote Democrat? Only if they swing the party issues in the polar opposite direction for 2012.

190 sleepyone  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:15:02pm
I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right

Where has he been? The Religious Right has always been a big part of the Republican party as long as I can remember. I was in Dallas during 1984 Republican Convention (not in the convention itself but outside enjoying the "Rock Against Reagan" free concert) and there was a huge presence of the Christian Coalition. They even had a parade at night walking slowly down to the convention center right by the main stage area with the "punks" lining the street yelling shit at them.

I think this guy is full of shit if that's his excuse. He's certainly no conservative and most likely not really a Republican either.

191 Page  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:15:06pm

re: #171 experiencedtraveller


Thank you, I stand corrected. I hope that doesn't undermine my general thesis too badly...

192 ornery elephant  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:15:09pm

So this is the way to a Republican landslide in 2010? Throw religion onto the trash heap? That must be the ticket - let's ban any public displays this Christmas of nativity scenes and we can get this Colorado Republican's vote back!

Hey, let's get more votes in 2010! Let's go Pro-Choice! Let's back the Gay Marriage initiatives! Oh, and let's attract more union workers by backing the UAW - give the car makers the bailout! More votes still needed? Hmmm...oh yeah! Let's back the Shamnesty bill and get all those hispanic votes!

193 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:15:10pm

re: #125 Sharmuta

It is true. This doctor's trying to tell you all that. Other fiscal conservatives are trying to say this! You can't piss off the fisc-cons either! Helllooo.

I think the factions in this party better figure out how to keep each other happy if we're ever going to see victory any time soon.

I could be wrong but, I see SoCons having more passion than FisCons.

194 Abu Lahab  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:15:13pm

re: #164 zombie

Yes, exactly the Mo one. Maybe no seething imam ever visited your blog yet.
You need to add it to a Saudi blog directory.

195 newsjunkie_ky  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:15:22pm

F*ck him.

196 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:15:45pm

re: #179 Sharmuta

I think it's much easier to see this doctor as a "moby" than it is to give his words credence and consider his point of view.

They are letting the fact that he voted for Obama to completely cloud their critical thinking skills and address the very good points he makes on the Republican party.

197 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:15:50pm

I said it during the DNC- that if democrats are going to start acting like a fiscally responsible party as opposed to the republicans, we were/are screwed!

That's a hint, btw.

198 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:15:53pm

re: #176 CharlieBravo

Great to hear. Always wondered why the howl over no government funding for stem cell research considering it'll lead to dead men awakening - almost.

Glad you're listening! So, pass the word when you hear others going on about thi . . . , ya know what I mean?

199 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:15:54pm

re: #166 Intrepid

Excellent post, Zombie. One suggestion - you wrote, under the heading of "If we won why are there troops still in Iraq":

Perhaps the word "occupations" could be said in a way that doesn't hint at the US forces being "OCCUPIERS"?

That word has been a big source of contention.

/just a question/suggestion

Interesting. Do you have any specific suggestions? Doesn't even the Bush administration call it "the occupation"? If not that word, what word? Or how to rephrase?

200 Karridine  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:16:10pm

Zombie, up in a few moments at [Link: www.ICallBS.net...]

/I hafta reboot to another partition to access my blog

201 Tigger2005  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:16:52pm

re: #112 Killgore Trout

I see a lot of people are angry at the voters who have been alienated or driven out of the party. They'll tell you why they left. You don't have to listen.

Oh, I'm listening, Killgore. But their reasons just aren't good enough. In any other election, at any other time, maybe they would have been. But not this election, not this time.

202 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:17:09pm

re: #138 Wishing

ROFL...

It was not my intent to belittle the Hatchling for the number of her/his comments but, her/his assertion that she/he had said it one thousand times could not be left without comment.

203 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:17:24pm

re: #196 Walter L. Newton

They are letting the fact that he voted for Obama to completely cloud their critical thinking skills and address the very good points he makes on the Republican party.

I see NO evidence he voted for Obama...he stated only that he did not vote for Republicans.

204 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:17:26pm
205 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:17:42pm

re: #200 Karridine

Zombie, up in a few moments at [Link: www.ICallBS.net...]

/I hafta reboot to another partition to access my blog

Great! I'll add you to the list.

206 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:17:48pm

re: #197 Sharmuta

We'll have to wait and see but I'm still expecting a "New Deal" type thing from Obama. I'm not sure if fiscal responsibility is even a consideration.

207 experiencedtraveller  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:18:19pm

re: #191 Page

Not all all my friend. I just saw that youth vote statistic this weekend and was a bit surprised by it. As usual, the youth vote was underwhelming.

208 Jimmah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:18:35pm

re: #30 Fredlike

The atheistic left had no problem voting for the religious liberal Obama.

That's because Obama is a firm secularist. Whatever else you think about him, he appears to have got that part right.

209 capitalist piglet  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:19:00pm

re: #139 Charles

Alan White and Rick Squire.

I've met Alan White. What on earth was he doing on Huckabee? Now I have to watch the re-run, if it's on. Ugh.

210 slokat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:19:12pm

re: #73 zombie

Cool, just feeling like it needs a newspaper headline mockup to make the MSM feel that they can relate?

211 Opinionated  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:19:14pm
I’ve become increasingly alienated by the Republicans“ embrace of the religious ”social conservative“ agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

I gladly voted for McCain and will likely continue to vote Republicans just because there is no decent alternative.

Yet I feel like the author. It started even before the primaries in the way Giuliani was vilified. An absolutely superb leader was, to be kind, a no go - if you ignore the vitriol and "baby killer" name calling- because while he would give the SoCons what they wanted in practice he didn't come to them to seek absolution and forgiveness on bended knee.

And Romney was diminished in my eyes because another competent leader felt he had to twist into strange shapes to appease the SoCons.

Our Republican primaries started with a vote for a "Christian Leader" instead of a leader.

Real Conservatism is a sort of Libertarianism. Leave people the hell alone to live their personal lives as they see fit and don't shove your beliefs down strangers throats.

212 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:19:14pm

re: #111 solomonpanting

Isn't there a case to be made that if the economy hadn't tanked, then McCain's lead may have held? I'm not a member of the Religious Right, but I'll never forgive them for sending the economy and our economic institutions into a nosedive./

Uhm - are you saying that the "religious right" tanked the economy?

/sorry - just want some clarification

213 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:19:18pm

re: #204 Iron Fist

Gay marriage is so far out of the mainstream of American politics that even in California it is opposed by the majority so much that they are willing to amend the State Constitution rather than permit the State Supreme Court to mandate it. It's pretty clear.

The anti-8 crowd really truly believes that they will get the election overturned before the year is out. Seriously. With obscure legal maneuvers.

If they do so, I predict a serious cultural meltdown in California.

214 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:19:22pm

re: #201 Tigger2005

But their reasons just aren't good enough.


Heh. Sure they are. They are leaving the party and voting for the opposition. That's the reality of the situation.

215 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:19:27pm
216 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:19:46pm

re: #185 Iron Fist

Type II. They've talked about putting me on a pump, but I've been very resistant to the idea. I have to take a shitload of insulin, though. That's life. with my genetics it was always a question of when I would get diabetes, not if I would get it.

I'm more bothered by the kids that get it. That's a hard way to grow up.

You will feel much better on the pump because you can 'tweak' your blood sugars, as needed. And don't worry about the amount of insulin, the pump holds up to 70cc's. As for the kids, you're right! It is a hard way to grow up for them!

217 Outrider  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:19:51pm

re: #187 Haverwilde

I do believe those are conservative values!

Not all of them. A conservative value is social change is not mandated through legislative action. To wit: Conservatives do not blindly oppose progress, but nor do they believe in change merely for social experimentation. On the other hand, a liberal will tend to believe the world can and will be changed through government forces in what Franklin Roosevelt called "bold persistent experimentation". Many of the programs that people are referring to as the social conservative values do fall under this umbrella.

218 alan2  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:20:14pm

#28 Walter - Awesome.

Unfortunately, we have been taught that religion is opposed to reason and that secularism is the antithesis (and indeed the antidote) to religion.

However, the secular viewpoint is every bit a religious one as the Catholic or Christian viewpoint.

But that takes an educated understanding to see through the cr*p promulgated by those in our society who should know better.

Paul Tsieh has just cut off the very branch on which his principles depend and doesn't realize that.

Sad, really. He's really a liberal.

219 Osama Bin Asshat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:20:29pm

The simple solution to marriage is for the government to get out of the marriage business. If gays want to marry, find a church that accepts gay marriage and so be it...as a Catholic, we don't allow gay marriage, so find another church...in both cases, you don't need the government to sanction the marriage. Simple.

220 NYCHardhat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:20:32pm

Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

221 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:20:37pm

re: #210 slokat

Cool, just feeling like it needs a newspaper headline mockup to make the MSM feel that they can relate?

Great idea!

But my skill in that department, graphics-wise, would be severely limited. Anybody who wants to email me a newspaper mockup, I'll gladly consider adding it to the post!

222 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:20:46pm

re: #206 Killgore Trout

My point was that's how the dems presented themselves- as republicans, while republicans looked like big spending, drunken sailors democrats. How is the party supposedly of fiscal responsibility supposed to combat that?

That's how the GOP is losing me.

223 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:20:55pm

re: #215 cincinnati_kid37

My guess is that this fellow is a homosexual.

Not that there's anything wrong with that..

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

224 Tigger2005  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:20:56pm

re: #196 Walter L. Newton

They are letting the fact that he voted for Obama to completely cloud their critical thinking skills and address the very good points he makes on the Republican party.

No, I'm certainly not. The points he makes are important, and I've been making them myself. BUT THEY DO NOT EXCUSE HIS VOTING FOR OBAMA.

225 Maximinus Thrax  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:21:12pm

re: #25 Iron Fist

The Republican Party is an uneasy coalition of social and economic conservatives. What the good doctor wants to see in the Republican party already exists in the Libertarian party. Libertarian = traditional Republican minus the religious right. I for one only vote Republican due to the fact that they represent social conservatism. McCain was only energized after nominating Palin. Hate if if you want, but for the Republican party to exist as a national force of reckoning it must protect its social conservative credentials.

226 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:21:25pm

re: #215 cincinnati_kid37

That's a mighty fucking interesting assumption.

227 Silhouette  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:21:46pm

re: #170 FurryOldGuyJeans

Voters can be quite dumb when they work at it. Look at the whole hanging chad fiasco in 2000.

It was the butterfly ballot that was associated with voter boneheadedness. The hanging chads were hanging because at least one corner of the chad was still attached after the needle-thing went all the way through. In other words, the voter did everything right, but punch-outs don't always detach all the way around.

A possible exception are those still connected by three corners. Like the "pregnant" chads, those attached but with a noticible bulge. Both of those MAY, but maybe not, have been caused by a voter mistake.

228 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:22:07pm

re: #215 cincinnati_kid37

WTF does that have to do with anything?!

229 heidi586  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:22:25pm

re: #116 jamie

I am not a "Bible thumping nut job", but I do find abortion to be a plague to society. When a society accepts death to those who have no voice as an excuse or fix - then it is a slippery slop downward. There are other choices to prevent pregnancy and if a woman does become pregnant, she also has other choices than abortion. Yes, there needs to be room for exceptions, but abortion shouldn't be looked at as a form of birth control...or a 'way out'. Everyone talks about 'rights' and 'choices'...but why is it only the 'right or choice' of the woman...I'm sorry but a fetus/child has a 'right' to life.
I'm sure many won't/don't agree with me but to paint with such a broad brush - everyone who believes in the right to life as "Bible thumping nut jobs' ...is wrong!
The way I look at is...this should have been dealt with just as the gay marriage issue is now...by the people of each state. If I am in the minority then so be it. Either way...the people of this nation should have been able to quiet this once and for all.

230 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:22:26pm

re: #224 Tigger2005

No, I'm certainly not. The points he makes are important, and I've been making them myself. BUT THEY DO NOT EXCUSE HIS VOTING FOR OBAMA.

I don't see anything in the screed except who he DID NOT vote for.

231 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:22:33pm
232 Page  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:22:48pm

re: #207 experiencedtraveller

Not all all my friend. I just saw that youth vote statistic this weekend and was a bit surprised by it. As usual, the youth vote was underwhelming.


In a way, I find the low youth turnout disappointing...I was thinking that there is no way those college kids will be so geared up to go vote in the off-year election, which would boost our chances of gaining back some ground in Congress...

Regardless, I don't see this election as a major shift in the electorate, just a slight tilting of the perpetually wobbling middle.

233 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:22:55pm

re: #15 Charles

I don't see this as an excuse for not voting -- I see it as a reason why he voted for the Democrats. We all have our own personal tipping points.

There was only one national Republican candidate advocating a Religious Right agenda, and that was Huckabee, who as I recall was rejected by the Republican primary voters in favor of John McCain (he of the anti-Religious Right sentiment). Sarah Palin is certainly of the Religious Right, but as Tigger2005 said, she has never evinced a desire to force her religious beliefs on her constituents.

What the good doctor seems to be echoing in his essay is that the Republican Party must condemn and reject the Religious Right, chasing them out of Party caucuses and excluding them from polling places, for it to earn his "conservative" vote.

Yet for some reason, the Democratic Party has an active outreach to evangelical Christians. Why is it that the party of separation of church and state and of freedom from religion wants to cozy up to the people who the good doctor thinks are the locus of evil and intolerance in the world?

As a matter of fact, what does it say for the good doctor's own level of tolerance that he can't stand to cohabitate in a party with people whose religious beliefs don't comport with his own? Is it that people who advocate politically for freedom of choice are decent Americans and people who advocate politically for the rights of the unborn are despicable, intolerant un-Americans?

234 JohnSteele  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:22:58pm

re: #170 FurryOldGuyJeans
True, but you really have to work at it. The 2000 vote is a perfect example. Both counties where they went throught the debacle of the asinine hanging chad are heavily Democrat and controlled by Democrats. Somehow other counties, heavily Republican counties, managed to use the same system and, surprise, had no problems at all.

235 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:23:04pm

re: #228 Sharmuta

WTF does that have to do with anything?!

Ok cincinnati_kid37... you've got three "what the fuck." It's Lizards rules that you have to explain yourself.

236 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:23:13pm

re: #214 Killgore Trout

Heh. Sure they are. They are leaving the party and voting for the opposition. That's the reality of the situation.


Yeah! We should all believe Killgore, as he knows the author of this piece personally, and can verify that the author has always voted Republican!

Besides, how could you doubt anyone who says they're a lifelong Republican?

///

237 Formercorpsman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:23:39pm

To be honest, when I peel away the hyperbole, what I am left with is that this guy voted against his own political beliefs because others would not vote against their own.

238 Tigger2005  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:23:41pm

re: #214 Killgore Trout

Heh. Sure they are. They are leaving the party and voting for the opposition. That's the reality of the situation.

You only quoted part of my post.

I said, "In any other election, at any other time, maybe they (the reasons) would have been (good enough to vote for the opposition)."

This was not the time.

239 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:23:44pm

re: #212 Intrepid

Uhm - are you saying that the "religious right" tanked the economy?

/sorry - just want some clarification

I was being sarcastic. My point was that McCain may have lost because of the economy, not owing to the RR.

240 JohnSteele  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:23:50pm

re: #208 Jimmah

That's because Obama is a firm secularist opportunist Whatever else you think about him, he appears to have got that part right.


Fixed for you

241 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:24:39pm

re: #215 cincinnati_kid37

This is the problem. I do not see where his sexual orientation adds to, or takes away from, his statements. Its a non issue here, as it is a non issue in most cases.

242 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:24:47pm

re: #217 Outrider

Not all of them. A conservative value is social change...

That is so much Bovine Scat! That may be your conservative value, but it is antithetical to big 'C' conservatism. Conservatisms biggest weakness is its inability to embrace change. That is one of a couple of points where libertarianism splits from conservatism.

243 Salem  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:24:49pm

re: #192 ornery elephant

So this is the way to a Republican landslide in 2010? Throw religion onto the trash heap? That must be the ticket - let's ban any public displays this Christmas of nativity scenes and we can get this Colorado Republican's vote back!

Hey, let's get more votes in 2010! Let's go Pro-Choice! Let's back the Gay Marriage initiatives! Oh, and let's attract more union workers by backing the UAW - give the car makers the bailout! More votes still needed? Hmmm...oh yeah! Let's back the Shamnesty bill and get all those hispanic votes!

If you tie your religion to every social issues, then I guess you must like it on that trash heap. Have at it.

244 notutopia  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:24:59pm

How do we plan as Republicans to keep church and state separate in the fight against Islamic ideology? If we have allowed creationism to be slipped into the school system curriculum through the back door as a SCIENCE.
Islam will be next knocking at the school doors.
We MUST keep church and state separate from our Government!

245 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:25:03pm

I keep hearing that the republicans can't win without the so-cons, but the point keeps getting lost here.

The moral of this election is that you can't win without fisc-cons.

246 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:25:50pm

re: #241 ArmyWife

This is the problem. I do not see where his sexual orientation adds to, or takes away from, his statements. Its a non issue here, as it is a non issue in most cases.

cincinnati_kid37 is some sort of troll, he drops a comment in here and refuses to answer.

247 CharlieBravo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:26:25pm

re: #197 Sharmuta

I said it during the DNC- that if democrats are going to start acting like a fiscally responsible party as opposed to the republicans, we were/are screwed!

That's a hint, btw.

Yep. Money talks the other stuff walks. If they get just that one thing right...

248 NelsFree  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:26:43pm

You know, when I read the title, I thought of ACORN and the Senatorial election in MN. "The Democrat-controlled Election Committee lost my Vote". Only there, the Democrats are FINDING votes for their man.

249 kahall  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:26:47pm

I agree with what the good doctor says, but I still voted for McCain cuz I aint insane. Give. Me. A. Break.

250 Osama Bin Asshat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:26:48pm

I think cincinnati was having fun with the Sienfeld gay episode..."not that there's anything wrong with it"...

251 ssawtell  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:27:04pm

re: #181 itellu3times

This was my reaction too. I happen to be a libertarian myself so I would be thrilled if this was the direction republicans went... If you disagree with most of the social conservativism and agree with the fiscal conservativism you're probably libertarian. welcome :)

Also, does the article say he voted for Obama? It was my impression that he probably voted for a 3rd party candidate...

252 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:27:27pm

re: #245 Sharmuta

I keep hearing that the republicans can't win without the so-cons, but the point keeps getting lost here.

The moral of this election is that you can't win without fisc-cons.

And who stayed home in 2006? Oh yeah! Fisc-cons pissed off about spending.

253 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:27:27pm

re: #236 gmsc

Trust me, I've heard this story before. I only voting Republican once so losing my vote is no big deal. But as I've written about before, my mother and stepfather (both lifelong Republicans) cast their first even Dem votes for Obama. Their reasons (with the addition of Palin as VP) are detailed in the letter Charles linked to. You can pretend these people don't exist but they do and they vote.

254 Basho  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:27:38pm

re: #251 ssawtell

Also, does the article say he voted for Obama? It was my impression that he probably voted for a 3rd party candidate...

Same thing...

255 Silhouette  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:27:52pm

re: #249 kahall

I agree with what the good doctor says, but I still voted for McCain cuz I aint insane. Give. Me. A. Break.

Now THAT would have been a good bumper sticker.

Vote for McCain if you ain't Insane.

256 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:27:52pm

re: #233 stuiec

Sarah Palin is certainly of the Religious Right, but as Tigger2005 said, she has never evinced a desire to force her religious beliefs on her constituents.

That is precisely why I--and many others--find her to be immensely appealing.

If I want moral/religious instruction, I look to my Bible and my preacher. If I want political leadership, I look to my Constitution and my elected representatives.

257 Outrider  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:28:08pm

re: #203 FurryOldGuyJeans

I see NO evidence he voted for Obama...he stated only that he did not vote for Republicans.

I see no evidence he is a Republican

258 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:28:32pm

re: #250 Osama Bin Asshat

I think cincinnati was having fun with the Sienfeld gay episode..."not that there's anything wrong with it"...

Whatever, he didn't use a sarcasm tag and he isn't answering any of our questions to him. That kind of shit will only get him isolated from other Lizards and we will ignore him.

259 MarkX  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:29:00pm

re: #154 Tigger2005

I don't think it is nearly a good enough reason, Charles. For one thing, the Republicans hardly nominated a social conservative for president.

The choice was very clear in this election. One thing we could trust McCain/Palin to do was protect our country to the utmost of their ability.

Exactly.

McCain is the least of the Republican candidates in bed with the Religious Right/ social conservatives in the last 28 years.

Give me a f*** break.

Hey, doc, ever heard of Ronald Reagan? Bush 41? George ‘Jesus is my favorite philosopher’ Bush?

So he could vote for them, but McCain is too socially conservative
for him now?


I call BS.

I bet he never voted for a Republican for President in the past.

260 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:29:05pm

re: #147 Iron Fist

Yeah, and that's the way it should be. I'm a diabetic, and my dad's got Parkinsons in addition to diabetes, and I think the Federal government's money should be better spent in other endevors. there are to many ethical questions in embryonic research, and those questions can never be settled.

Ditto for me - my mom has Alzheimer's, and her life is precious. But so are the lives of the fetuses whose tissue would be used for research. Adult stem cell research is producing much more promising news nowadays, so I say let's keep supporting (with fed funds) adult stem cell research over fetal SCR.

261 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:29:54pm

So it's all the fault of the the religious folk?

Doesn't matter to me, I'm hanging out with the Libertarians anyhow.

262 NYCHardhat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:30:01pm

The thing that ultimately did McCain in is the fact that his opponent had a BILLION DOLLAR campaign. As for the GOP losing voters. Where the hell are you going to go. Vote Democrat?

263 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:30:03pm
If a woman chooses not to have an abortion for reasons of personal faith, then I completely respect her right to do so. But she cannot impose her particular religious views on others.

Well, no, and the Republican Party certainly isn't stupid enough to encourage or endorse her, an individual, to attempt to forcefully prevent the baby killer from her deed. But that woman of personal faith certainly is completely within her rights as an individual to support a GOP that wishes the Supreme Court would quit interfering with the state's proper place in making laws concerning such matters. Just as the states are responsible for laws concerning other similar matters (murder, other forms of homicide and such), they should be allowed to deal with abortion as well.

This guy was never a conservative anyway ... traditional conservative people have not been pro-abortion over the ages ... that's just what Democrats who have become more and more lefty over the last 50 years want you to believe. And also -- since when are our laws not based ultimately upon the ten commandments? Aren't all of our laws based pretty much on our Judeo-Christian heritage? And since when is there something wrong with that? Got a better idea?

264 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:30:04pm

re: #196 Walter L. Newton

They are letting the fact that he voted for Obama to completely cloud their critical thinking skills and address the very good points he makes on the Republican party.

Where in the article do you see that he voted for Obama?
I think his feelers were hurt by Rush, and that it was a spite thing.
Barr probably got his vote.

265 FrogMarch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:30:21pm

I understand and agree with many of his points. But for me, I won't run into the arms of Marxism for comfort.
& the party of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin
& Murtha etc.. will not get my vote.

266 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:30:27pm

re: #260 Intrepid

Ditto for me - my mom has Alzheimer's, and her life is precious. But so are the lives of the fetuses whose tissue would be used for research. Adult stem cell research is producing much more promising news nowadays, so I say let's keep supporting (with fed funds) adult stem cell research over fetal SCR.

And THAT's productive research!

267 experiencedtraveller  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:30:32pm

re: #245 Sharmuta

The post is about So-cons, not fisc-cons. I would think that no lizard has any issue at all with fiscal conservatism.

268 Wendya  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:30:37pm

I've never understood how someone who considers themselves conservative in any way, either fiscal or social, could cast a vote for Obama. What is this... a stamping my feet in the midst of a massive hissy fit statement? What exactly do you gain by acting like a 4 year old?

269 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:30:40pm

re: #224 Tigger2005

No, I'm certainly not. The points he makes are important, and I've been making them myself. BUT THEY DO NOT EXCUSE HIS VOTING FOR OBAMA.

Agreed. Further, I don't agree with his attack on the Religious Right. We need such people to vote for us. I grant that we can't be too linked to them, but we cannot do without them either.

270 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:30:55pm

re: #260 Intrepid

Ditto for me - my mom has Alzheimer's, and her life is precious. But so are the lives of the fetuses whose tissue would be used for research. Adult stem cell research is producing much more promising news nowadays, so I say let's keep supporting (with fed funds) adult stem cell research over fetal SCR.

How is your mom doing?

271 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:31:00pm

re: #250 Osama Bin Asshat

I think cincinnati was having fun with the Sienfeld gay episode..."not that there's anything wrong with it"...

I'm beginning to think there's something wrong with the phrase "not that there's anything wrong with it."

272 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:31:17pm

re: #179 Sharmuta

Gosh yes ... he's like those .. what does Rush call 'em ... program callers?

273 AuldTrafford  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:31:32pm

Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if I'm repeating.

Technically, I think the Doc is correct; morality is a legitimate part of government - a society/culture has the right to protect its fundamental values from violation. But in our Federal system, the government responsible for that function is the State government; the Fed has no Constitutional business legislating/ruling in these areas.

Major problem is: the liberals, starting largely with FDR and liberal Supreme Court (particularly the Warren Court's horrendous misinterpretations of "due process" and "equal protection") decisions, have eroded the principle. With the libs having opened up regulation (or, as they might argue, deregulation) of morality, the other side has a right to fight back.

The major problem I have with the Doc is that the real issues critical to our survival are national security and the economy (domestic and foreign). If you insist on killing babies to the extent that you are willing to disarm the nation and appease the world's murderers - while pouring your economy down the toilet at the same time - guess what?

274 ornery elephant  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:31:38pm

re: #243 Salem

If you tie your religion to every social issues, then I guess you must like it on that trash heap. Have at it.

Salem, I'm advocating that the founding fathers' intent of keeping government out of my religious practice be upheld. As for tieing my religion to social issues, well, does that sound all that absurd to you? You don't think my faith relates to social issues? Or do you think it's just about a one hour sermon, once a week?

275 tripletdad  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:31:51pm

Excluding people of faith from the Republican party will guarantee Democrat wins for the foreseeable future. The margins are too close to start splitting the party over these issues, especially when the bigger issue of this nation's very survival are at stake. Dems aren't having feuds over allowing pro-lifers in their party, are they?

276 kahall  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:31:52pm

Seriously, how do the Republicans address this issue? It is going to come up over an over until someone figures out how to include the "religious right" without turning non-religious people away from the party.

277 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:31:54pm

re: #256 MandyManners

It is interesting, that as an Alaskan who voted for Palin, I had no knowledge of her religious orientation. I voted for her because she has a history of fighting governmental corruption and the 'good-old-boy' political way of doing things. Her So-Con views never came up in the election.

278 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:32:18pm

re: #148 Bumr50

There is a difference between atheism and antitheism.

Agreed. I can't wait for a day when antitheists are considered to be the antithesis of most atheists.

279 JPL17  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:32:19pm

I Googled this guy and read his blog. He actually refers to fetuses as "a clump of cells." What a jerk.

I'd rather lose elections than pander to dopes like him. (And BTW, his last name is spelled "Hsieh", not "Tsieh.")

280 tappin52  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:32:30pm

re: #123 jamie

This is what I don't get--most people have figured out that simply writing off those who left a political party as being wrong is a sure way to stay in the minority.

And Conservatives are a welcome portion of the Democrat Party?

281 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:32:32pm

re: #253 Killgore Trout

Their mere existence does not make them the ones to emulate.

282 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:32:47pm

re: #245 Sharmuta

I keep hearing that the republicans can't win without the so-cons, but the point keeps getting lost here.

The moral of this election is that you can't win without fisc-cons.

We need a baby named SoFisCon or FiSoCon but, we need him to be born as an adult. (Does that make sense?)

283 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:32:57pm

re: #257 Outrider

I see no evidence he is a Republican

I am not a Republican, just an Independent Conservative. So not being a Republican doesn't necessarily mean he had to have voted for Obama. All he said is he didn't vote for McCain.

284 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:33:45pm

re: #279 JPL17

I Googled this guy and read his blog. He actually refers to fetuses as "a clump of cells." What a jerk.

I'd rather lose elections than pander to dopes like him. (And BTW, his last name is spelled "Hsieh", not "Tsieh.")

This guy isn't the sharpest tack in the box . . . , 'a clump of cells' saheeesh!

285 itellu3times  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:33:55pm

re: #253 Killgore Trout

Killgore, I just don't believe it. Like all the "moderates" who tell me that Palin's lack of qualifications, chased them into voting for Obama. Nope. It was the penumbra from Dubya, and the age and craziness of McCain, that caused them to vote Other. But they didn't want to say that, so they had to find some other story to tell.

286 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:34:38pm

re: #262 NYCHardhat

The thing that ultimately did McCain in is the fact that his opponent had a BILLION DOLLAR campaign. As for the GOP losing voters. Where the hell are you going to go. Vote Democrat?

yeah ... confused about that too ... I thought we got more votes this time than 4 years ago ... no? ... .. . . . I think it was a million more also than Bush senior received against Mondale.

287 Outrider  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:35:02pm

re: #242 Haverwilde

That is so much Bovine Scat! That may be your conservative value, but it is antithetical to big 'C' conservatism. Conservatisms biggest weakness is its inability to embrace change. That is one of a couple of points where libertarianism splits from conservatism.


Think you are wrong there. Philosophical beliefs are core. They don't change with the wind. If you want to call yourself a libertarian with fiscal conservative beliefs, fine. Call yourself whatever.

But, Conservatives are not against change. They are against change mandated by legislative action.

288 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:35:09pm

re: #257 Outrider

I see no evidence he is a Republican

Perhaps he is of that oh-so elusive--yet, omnipresent--class called, "Indepents" whom we MUST win over to the side of liberty.

289 MarkX  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:35:10pm

re: #172 shane

I gotta tell ya, this is a hoax. ...

Maybe it is just me, but can anyone really point to a concerted effort to make abortion illegal by the republican party? I know they stand against it, but when was the last time they actually proposed legislation against it? The spending habits have made me mad but I just don't see the huge push from the religous right this guy is talking about.

Exactly.

If the Republicans weren’t able to turn the US in at theocracy under Reagan, or Bush’s first term, when the GOP controlled the House & the Senate. You sure don’t have anything to worry about under McCain. The Religious Right hated McCain. Where was the good doc in 2000?

This excuse is so BS.

290 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:35:14pm

re: #267 experiencedtraveller

The post is about So-cons, not fisc-cons. I would think that no lizard has any issue at all with fiscal conservatism.

One of my ex's is Catholic- you'd think he'd be a so-con... He voted 3rd party because of the republicans ignoring their fiscal restraint and smaller government roots. I asked a republican for 0bama why he was doing it- he said "creationism in the GOP!" Can you believe that?!

This is a serious problem for the party, and yet when someone speaks up about it, he gets ridiculed so that his argument may be dismissed out of hand. But I've heard it from others, so I think we should listen to what they're saying. Because it's costing us elections, and it will continue to cost us elections if we don't even want to hear the reasoning of our own people when leaving.

291 jcbunga  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:35:16pm

The problem as I see it is that the Republicans have become liberals and the Democrats have become socialist/Marxists...and true conservatives are left looking for a leader. Just Google the inaugural addresses of JFK and FDR and you'll see they wouldn't let them in the party today.

Limited government, low taxes and low spending, get out of people's lives. It's not complicated.

Meanwhile, the border is still open, we haven't had an energy policy in 30 years, banks throw money at people who can't repay (or they used to) and what passes for journalists decry the death of capitalism.

I think if we actually tried capitalism AND limited government, we'd be just fine.

We're in for a rough ride, but it took a Carter to get us a Reagan.

Let it be.

292 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:36:08pm

re: #282 MandyManners

We need a baby named SoFisCon or FiSoCon but, we need him to be born as an adult. (Does that make sense?)

Perfect.

293 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:36:12pm

re: #250 Osama Bin Asshat

I think cincinnati was having fun with the Sienfeld gay episode..."not that there's anything wrong with it"...

That abbreviation is standard here. However, his post says otherwise.

294 shiek al beif salami  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:37:28pm

re: #291 jcbunga

And both parties are destroying liberty.

295 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:37:55pm

re: #277 Haverwilde

It is interesting, that as an Alaskan who voted for Palin, I had no knowledge of her religious orientation. I voted for her because she has a history of fighting governmental corruption and the 'good-old-boy' political way of doing things. Her So-Con views never came up in the election.

Nor should they in my mind. I'd vote for an FisCon, Republican atheist before I'd vote for CBBHO.

296 ssawtell  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:38:12pm

re: #279 JPL17

No offense, but you're a clump of cells... as am I. A fetus most certainly is a clump of cells and in the early stages of gestation that's all it is. Excepting any unwarranted metaphysical baggage you may be inclined to attach to it.

297 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:38:22pm

re: #288 MandyManners

Perhaps he is of that oh-so elusive--yet, omnipresent--class called, "Indepents" whom we MUST win over to the side of liberty.

*AHEM* Independent Conservative here. Or is that Conservative Independent?

298 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:38:58pm

re: #179 Sharmuta

I think it's much easier to see this doctor as a "moby" than it is to give his words credence and consider his point of view.

Who was it that either stayed at home during this past election, or who voted for Obama? This guy is an exception. The vast majority of conservatives who didn't vote for McCain were either fiscal conservatives or closed border ones.

John McCain is no member of the "religious right". He never claimed to be. Yes, Sarah Palin is a Christian, but she has never promoted her religious views during her tenure as governor of Alaska, even when she had the chance to do so. She could have allowed that piece of legislation to pass, the one that banned benefits for same-sex couples, but she didn't. She vetoed it, because it was unconstitutional.

Nor did she push ID in the classrooms there - she only suggested that debate be allowed when students initiated it.

It wasn't the Religious Right who screwed up this past election, it was the fiscons and bordercons.

299 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:39:19pm
300 Formercorpsman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:39:20pm

I have posed this question before with no response, but I will try again.

One of the biggest issues of course is abortion. Obviously one side of the party wishes the other side to stand down on the issue as they feel it is driving fiscal voters away.

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but it seems some feel the opposition should be less rigid. Thinking in terms of the mother's life at stake, rape, etc.

Does anyone who feels that social conservatives should stand down, would include standing down on their opposition to federal funding for abortion?

Moreover, specifically because we know legislation will be coming forth with respect to socialized medicine, and I feel there will be strong arguments from the proponents to include federal funding for abortion?

301 jcbunga  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:39:20pm

re: #296 ssawtell

No offense, but you're a clump of cells... as am I. A fetus most certainly is a clump of cells and in the early stages of gestation that's all it is. Excepting any unwarranted metaphysical baggage you may be inclined to attach to it.

Government keep your fascist hands off my clump of cells. /

302 NYCHardhat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:39:23pm

re: #286 Fearless Fred

There is no way the GOP stands a chance against a candidate that:

1. Is a pop culture icon
2. Has been called the Messiah, the One, etc
3. Has a billion dollar campaign with contributions that are untraceable
4. has the MSM behind him 100%
There are more reasons, but I won't bore you all. An Obama vote was a finger in the eye of George W. Bush. The MSM ruined him and brainwashed these imbeciles. Fuck em all.

303 medaura18586  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:39:37pm

re: #59 Max Darkside

I just say that because the MSM POUNDS us continually that there is a "OMG ! A BAN I TELL YOU! on embryonic stem cell research !"

... when, really, there isn't. I doubt I can get Fed funds to build a church, but that doesn't mean churches are banned.

/MSM DOLTS

Bush compromised though. The Religious Right was pushing for an outright ban on stem cell research. The fact that they didn't get what they sought does not change the depravity of their initial goal and the appropriateness of being disgusted by their motivations.

304 Outrider  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:39:39pm

re: #283 FurryOldGuyJeans

I am not a Republican, just an Independent Conservative. So not being a Republican doesn't necessarily mean he had to have voted for Obama. All he said is he didn't vote for McCain.

He said, "I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004". He went on to state, Rush Limbaugh told pro-choice secular supporters of limited government such as myself that we should leave the Republican Party. Many of us have already taken his advice and changed our affiliation to "independent.". "Even though I no longer regard myself as a Republican..."
Any other questions as to what he said? ;-)>

305 TGregg  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:39:56pm

The author is a `tard at best and a liar at worst. Oooo, he's for small government, liberty and low taxes but since the GOP is against "abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage" he's voting them down and going for bigger government, higher taxes, affirmative action, big unions, and all the rest of the socialist garbage.

No way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no religious loony. I'm pretty much in favor of abortion rights (or states rights, anyway). Stem cell research sounds promising to me. And who cares if Bill and Ted get married, as long as *I* don't have to marry somebody from my own sex.

If these three issues (abortion, stem cells, gay marriage) trump all the wrong headed issues that democrats favor, than the author is a closet liberal. He's just too scared to admit it,

306 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:40:04pm

re: #296 ssawtell
Oooo, I can hear the clicks on the keyboards from here in Alaska. You are in for it now.

307 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:40:11pm
308 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:40:43pm

re: #275 tripletdad

Excluding people of faith from the Republican party will guarantee Democrat wins for the foreseeable future.


The point is not to exclude them or drive them out of the party. They just need to stop demanding their religious moral sensibilities be the focus of the party. Instead we can all agree of personal liberty, small government and fiscal responsibility.

309 Gray Skies  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:41:01pm

re: #142 Killgore Trout

For everyone (not just Killgore Trout):

Just wondering...what is the definition of "passable job"? I've seen other posters say that they hope that Obama is "successful". What does "successful" mean?

310 Outrider  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:41:02pm

re: #288 MandyManners

Perhaps he is of that oh-so elusive--yet, omnipresent--class called, "Indepents" whom we MUST win over to the side of liberty.

I have no problem with that if we do not have to play Democrats merely to attract voters. We have tried that and it didn't work.

311 Wendya  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:41:24pm

re: #290 Sharmuta

This is a serious problem for the party, and yet when someone speaks up about it, he gets ridiculed so that his argument may be dismissed out of hand. But I've heard it from others, so I think we should listen to what they're saying. Because it's costing us elections, and it will continue to cost us elections if we don't even want to hear the reasoning of our own people when leaving.

As much as I abhor the whole "teach creationism/ID in school" bullshit, I have to wonder if it would be adopted nationwide. Take a good look at our schools and ask yourself, is creationism/ID is an equal or greater threat than the garbage being taught today regarding global warming and America as a "democracy"?

312 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:41:36pm

re: #274 ornery elephant

Salem, I'm advocating that the founding fathers' intent of keeping government out of my religious practice be upheld. As for tieing my religion to social issues, well, does that sound all that absurd to you? You don't think my faith relates to social issues? Or do you think it's just about a one hour sermon, once a week?

Hello Ornery! Hey ... I like what you say.
You know also we had states with state religions back then. Religion was very much part of our public life and was assumed to be fundamental to how many important policies evolved. Its commie pinkos who've tried to erase that history!

313 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:41:47pm

re: #298 Intrepid

Hon- that's my point. Republicans can't win without the fisc-cons. We stay home, flip sides, vote 3rd party- the GOP loses.

This is a coalition- we need to find some understanding as a party and I think the doctor hit the nail on the head with this:

Hence, I believe the Republican Party should choose the first path - the path of limited government, separation of church and state, and protection of individual rights.

Exactly right, Doc.

314 CharlieBravo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:41:50pm

re: #291 jcbunga

Exactly so.

315 bosforus  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:42:09pm

I don't think social conservatism lost the Reps the election, I think the fact that McCain tried so hard to not be a Republican people were left with the choice of an actual Democrat and a wannabe Democrat. Many people were left with the choice of "do I pick the democrat or the guy whose party doesn't like him and seems to be trying to be a democrat?" It's not too tough of a decision when you look at it that way.

316 TooDamNice  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:42:10pm

re: #296 ssawtell

No offense, but you're a clump of cells... as am I. A fetus most certainly is a clump of cells and in the early stages of gestation that's all it is. Excepting any unwarranted metaphysical baggage you may be inclined to attach to it.

Here we go... when does it cease to be a "clump of cells" and become a human being?

317 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:42:19pm

re: #307 Iron Fist

Sure, you don't need their votes. Don't worry about it.

318 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:43:41pm

Until the GOP decides to stop squabbling amongst it's different factions and allows EVERYBODY under the tent again...it will always be a minority party.

I browse other "conservative" sites and all they talk about is getting rid of the "non-religious" types.

I browse over her and all you guys talk about is getting rid of the "religious" types.

In my world, ALL types are welcome under the tent! You start discriminating by pitting one type of conservative against another...you'll always have a minority party.

319 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:43:45pm
320 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:43:51pm
321 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:44:01pm

re: #278 gmsc

Agreed. I can't wait for a day when antitheists are considered to be the antithesis of most atheists.

Bet ya can't say that fast.

322 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:44:03pm

re: #313 Sharmuta

Hon- that's my point. Republicans can't win without the fisc-cons. We stay home, flip sides, vote 3rd party- the GOP loses.

This is a coalition- we need to find some understanding as a party and I think the doctor hit the nail on the head with this:

Hence, I believe the Republican Party should choose the first path - the path of limited government, separation of church and state, and protection of individual rights.

Exactly right, Doc.

And how many on this thread would agree with this statement above made by the doctor. Let's assume this is the only statement he made. Is he right?

323 hazzyday  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:44:05pm

I think the effect that went on was that liberal conservatives supported socon's in the past, but when it came time for socon's to support a socially liberal conservative they jumped ship.

The argument that the socon agenda is valid because only socon's have won the presidency is a falsehood. Those socon's won because they persuaded center independents over.

While I consider myself a social conservative it's an extremely weak political mindset if one can't compromise.

324 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:44:14pm

re: #297 FurryOldGuyJeans

*AHEM* Independent Conservative here. Or is that Conservative Independent?

Not an "Indepent"?

325 Geepers  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:44:18pm

Wendya (#268),

I've never understood how someone who considers themselves conservative in any way, either fiscal or social, could cast a vote for Obama. What is this... a stamping my feet in the midst of a massive hissy fit statement? What exactly do you gain by acting like a 4 year old?

The fastest way to get your opinion recognized by the MSM is to claim to be a "lifelong Republican" who is fed up with the Republican party.

326 NYCHardhat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:44:31pm

re: #318 DesertSage

Yes!

327 Basho  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:44:32pm

re: #316 TooDamNice

His/her point was human beings are a clump of cells. He/she also meant exempting not excepting.

328 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:44:57pm

Oh boy- let me grab some popcorn.

329 tappin52  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:44:57pm

It makes no sense that anyone would find social Conservatives and religious people so offensive, yet vote for a man who belonged to a church whose tennets are so virulently racist and hateful as Black Liberation Theology is.

330 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:45:03pm

re: #226 MandyManners

That's a mighty fucking interesting assumption.

Thank you.

331 Fried Spam  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:45:19pm

re: #291 jcbunga

Well said. I agree with everything except the 'let it be'. Now is the time for us to figure out how to pick up the pieces in two years, or four years.

In my opinion, social conservatism in federal government should focus on border control and things that are truly of a national interest.

Conservatism should be in favor of a limited federal government. The federal government has no business in and should get out of things like education, marriage, and, yes, things like abortion. These things should be state matters.

332 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:45:22pm

re: #309 Gray Skies

If he leads as a status quo Clinton type, doesn't destroy the economy, etc. From the looks of his cabinet and transition team it sure looks like a possibility. If this happens and if the Republicans run someone like Palin, Jindal, Huckabee then I'll have no problem voting Dem. If Hillary were running against McCain I would have voted Dem this time.

333 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:45:29pm

re: #320 cincinnati_kid37

Well, it's obvious that homosexuals want a lot more attention than everyone else right now. Wouldn't you agree. And do you think that's a good thing

Fuck off asshole. Crawl back into your dung hole, ok.

334 Silhouette  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:45:41pm

re: #277 Haverwilde

It is interesting, that as an Alaskan who voted for Palin, I had no knowledge of her religious orientation.

VERY interesting.

You were actually under her "rule" and yet had no knowledge. Because it didn't come up. And despite what we heard from the mouths of all those who found her beliefs "scary", she did none of the things they all said they were terrified she would do.

Because unlike the three others running, we didn't have to guess on what she would do with executive power.

335 shiek al beif salami  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:45:50pm

re: #315 bosforus

I'm not sure that most people know what fiscal conservatism is. If the Federal government defunded every organization that wasn't accountable to voters, it would be a step toward fiscal conservatism.

336 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:45:52pm

good night, all
. . . . Zombie, thank you for:
Victory in Iraq Day

November 22, 2008

337 Gray Skies  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:46:04pm

re: #156 ghost707

My son-in-law is a young physician who is very specialized in an area that needs more of the same. He says that he will leave his practice if universal healthcare comes into play, as will many of his colleagues.

338 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:46:30pm

re: #322 Walter L. Newton

And how many on this thread would agree with this statement above made by the doctor. Let's assume this is the only statement he made. Is he right?

I quoted it in #2, which has picked up quite a few dings. But otherwise, he's a moby. Yep.

ZING *click* **crickets**

339 Osama Bin Asshat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:46:31pm

The Repubs HAVE TO co-opt the media to put to rest the misconceptions about Conservatives.

1. All abortion is bad crowd (take a stance on what is acceptable and go with it, no extremes)

2. "They're all racists". (check, got a black prez...no more race card...play the "no more race card, enough is enough)

3. God hates Fags (remove marriage from the government coffers, and this issue is moot)

4. "They're all bible thumpers" (separate church and state...emphasize that)

I'm an outsider...and I hear too much of this depiction from the media...Obama owned the media, and now he owns the presidency.

340 Wendya  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:46:41pm

re: #329 tappin52

It makes no sense that anyone would find social Conservatives and religious people so offensive, yet vote for a man who belonged to a church whose tennets are so virulently racist and hateful as Black Liberation Theology is.

A lot of people love Rev Wright's church because they believe the best way to beat down religion is to destroy it from within.

341 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:46:42pm

re: #299 TooDamNice

Fuck you.

342 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:46:49pm

re: #199 zombie

Interesting. Do you have any specific suggestions? Doesn't even the Bush administration call it "the occupation"? If not that word, what word? Or how to rephrase?

In the context? No. It fits. The only thing I could think would be to start from the beginning of the paragraph, and say something more innocuous:

"Does our victory mean that I advocate the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq? No. Wars may be won but the relationship between the force that perpetrated and won the war and the citizens and government of the war-torn country generally don't end crisply and cleanly like that."

?

343 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:47:21pm

This writer is full of it. Name one right he has lost in the last 8 years.

344 NYCHardhat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:47:25pm

re: #329 tappin52

There is a complete lack of consistency around here.

345 Crux Australis  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:47:28pm

re: #315 bosforus

I don't think social conservatism lost the Reps the election, I think the fact that McCain tried so hard to not be a Republican people were left with the choice of an actual Democrat and a wannabe Democrat. Many people were left with the choice of "do I pick the democrat or the guy whose party doesn't like him and seems to be trying to be a democrat?" It's not too tough of a decision when you look at it that way.

That's what I was thinking! Good point!

346 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:47:33pm
347 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:47:42pm

re: #320 cincinnati_kid37

Charles, we got a troll here.

348 Geepers  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:47:45pm

JPL17 (#279),

I Googled this guy and read his blog. He actually refers to fetuses as "a clump of cells." What a jerk.

I'd rather lose elections than pander to dopes like him. (And BTW, his last name is spelled "Hsieh", not "Tsieh.")

Linky?

349 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:47:46pm

re: #279 JPL17

I Googled this guy and read his blog. He actually refers to fetuses as "a clump of cells." What a jerk.

fetus --
–noun, plural -tus⋅es. Embryology.
(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

I'd rather lose elections than pander to dopes like him. (And BTW, his last name is spelled "Hsieh", not "Tsieh.")

350 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:47:50pm
351 sleepyone  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:47:53pm

re: #308 Killgore Trout

The point is not to exclude them or drive them out of the party. They just need to stop demanding their religious moral sensibilities be the focus of the party. Instead we can all agree of personal liberty, small government and fiscal responsibility.

If that's the case then his argument was facetious since no one on the McCain ticket was advocating the religious right's moral sensibilities be a focus of the party.

I say he's full of shit. He didn't get exactly what he wanted in a candidate so he took his ball and went home. This guy is a big baby and anyone who abstained from voting for McCain for similar reasons are babies too.

352 Fried Spam  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:47:59pm

re: #335 shiek al beif salami

I'm not sure that most people know what fiscal conservatism is. If the Federal government defunded every organization that wasn't accountable to voters, it would be a step toward fiscal conservatism.

This may be anathema, but Bill Clinton, at least with a Republican congress, was somewhat of a fiscal conservative. He may have been the first fiscal conservative in about 30 years.

353 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:48:18pm

re: #310 Outrider

I have no problem with that if we do not have to play Democrats merely to attract voters. We have tried that and it didn't work.

While I was writing about Independents, I also know that there are many Democrats who are Yellow Dog Democrats.

354 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:48:19pm

re: #329 tappin52

It makes no sense that anyone would find social Conservatives and religious people so offensive, yet vote for a man who belonged to a church whose tennets are so virulently racist and hateful as Black Liberation Theology is.

Now there is no point in being logical now?

355 CharlieBravo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:48:50pm

re: #316 TooDamNice

Here we go... when does it cease to be a "clump of cells" and become a human being?

Ummm... depends on who you ask, I mean what their pay grade is.

356 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:49:01pm
357 ssawtell  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:49:08pm

re: #316 TooDamNice

As soon as you want - go ahead and pick a definition for "human." My only point was that it's a bit silly to be offended by the statement of what is just a simple truth. It reminds me of people who are afraid of splenda because it's "chemicals," not natural. Yes, I have actually heard that argument.

358 AuldTrafford  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:49:19pm

re: #331 Fried Spam

Well said. I agree with everything except the 'let it be'. Now is the time for us to figure out how to pick up the pieces in two years, or four years.

In my opinion, social conservatism in federal government should focus on border control and things that are truly of a national interest.

Conservatism should be in favor of a limited federal government. The federal government has no business in and should get out of things like education, marriage, and, yes, things like abortion. These things should be state matters.

Exactly right. It was the liberal Supreme Court that got the Feds into marriage and abortion; interference in education actually started during Reconstruction - when Congress decided it would be good to monitor the progress of education in the South - so it wouldn't be dumb enough to want to secede again.

359 longacre  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:49:26pm

Sigh. Don't post much, but I’ve got to try and push (or at least lean) against the repeated posts here that posit that the crazy right-winger/social-conservative/creationist/anti-abortion/etc. crowd is killing the Republican Party. I am what would be considered a part of the "Religious Right", and am myself unenthused about the Republican Party. And it's not because they got power and didn't somehow impose a theocracy - the alleged desire for such seemingly the common subtext for Mr. Hsieh and others.

No, my dissatisfaction comes precisely because they have not strongly embraced the tenets of "limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism". And I believe that the failure to do so has cost the party big-time. You could certainly say that a generally anti-abortion (or pro-life for us more “socially conservative” types) stance, has cost Republicans votes; but there's no reasonable way you could point to this guy's other listed objections ("attempts to ban…embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage"), and say those political positions have lost elections – certainly not on a national scale.

360 yah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:49:38pm

re: #219 Osama Bin Asshat

The simple solution to marriage is for the government to get out of the marriage business. If gays want to marry, find a church that accepts gay marriage and so be it...as a Catholic, we don't allow gay marriage, so find another church...in both cases, you don't need the government to sanction the marriage. Simple.


I am in total agreement. Why should married people have rights that unmarried people don't? That's what the gays are upset about. It has nothing to do with love or commitment. It is all about the MONEY.

Let's just ban marriage altogether.

361 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:49:39pm

re: #330 cincinnati_kid37

Thank you.

It wasn't a compliment, kid.

362 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:50:12pm

re: #346 Iron Fist

Where did the doctor say he voted for 0bama?

And go ahead and ignore the point, but there it is. Fisc-cons are pissed and not voting republican. What are we going to do about it?

363 Basho  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:50:21pm

re: #329 tappin52

It makes no sense that anyone would find social Conservatives and religious people so offensive, yet vote for a man who belonged to a church whose tennets are so virulently racist and hateful as Black Liberation Theology is.

I think something many are missing is that they were rejecting the Republican Party as a whole. The brand has been damaged, so to speak. And pointing out how individual Democrats are just as bad or worse isn't addressing the root cause.

364 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:50:24pm

re: #246 Walter L. Newton

cincinnati_kid37 is some sort of troll, he drops a comment in here and refuses to answer.

I don't live here. Eh. And I just answered. I'm all for equal rights, and I don't care what people do in private as long as it doesn't violate someone else. But it's obvious that some homosexuals want to force their lifestyle on the rest of us. ie.

- There are no Hetro-sexual parades.
- There are no MASS public displays of the Hetrosexual Physical, ala Zombie.
You all know I could go on.

I don't like being pushed by any group whether it's PETA, Homosexual, Skinheads, or take your pick.

365 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:50:33pm

re: #346 Iron Fist

Bluntly, if fiscal conservatives voted for Obama, well, they're fixing to watch their position eviscerated in the next few years. Good luck with that. There are a lot of reasons to be pissed at the Republicans, but voting for Obama because of them is about the most self-defeating strategy I've ever heard of.

So far twice now there has been an election that had voters stating they were going to punish the Republicans for being too Democrat-like, and what did we get more of?

366 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:51:12pm

The author of the article is a jack ass. The only ban of Embryonic Stem Cells is on Federal Funding, which Fiscal Conservatives should endorse.. He, and anyone else that uses the Danbury Letter ought to read both the letter from Danbury Baptist _and_ Jefferson's response.

And why did Prop 8 win in California? It wasn't because of the throngs of Republican Religious Right voters. This man is saying that a person's religious foundation cannot be used to determine that person's desires for how society should function.

This moron's entire organization is based on the following:


Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh argue that the current crisis in American health care is the result of decades of government interference and violations of individual rights in health insurance and medicine. The only moral and practical solution to the problem is not more government controls but instead to gradually and systematically transition to a rights-respecting, fully free market in those industries. From the Winter 2007-2008 issue of The Objective Standard.

Apparently not.

367 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:51:28pm

re: #333 Walter L. Newton

Fuck off asshole. Crawl back into your dung hole, ok.

Well, fuck you very much too. Smiles.

368 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:51:28pm

re: #302 NYCHardhat

There is no way the GOP stands a chance against a candidate that:

1. Is a pop culture icon
2. Has been called the Messiah, the One, etc
3. Has a billion dollar campaign with contributions that are untraceable
4. has the MSM behind him 100%
There are more reasons, but I won't bore you all. An Obama vote was a finger in the eye of George W. Bush. The MSM ruined him and brainwashed these imbeciles. Fuck em all.

and the lefty white guilt shelby steele wrote about! ... just a min ... I'll get a link for ya

369 Cobber1  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:52:14pm

This is a sad day for me. As an almost daily visitor this will be may last visit to this great blog.

Unfortunately I no longer feel welcome here. My belief in the value of all life (even the un-born), my belief in a purposeful life (not a cosmic accident), and my belief in the Bible based structure of the US government, are now regularily attacked here. I can tell when I am no longer welcome.

I know I will be missed little, and most will say good riddance but I wanted to say, thanks for the ride. This really is a great blog. All the best.

370 Red Sea Desjardini Tang  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:52:19pm

re: #15 Charles

I don't see this as an excuse for not voting -- I see it as a reason why he voted for the Democrats. We all have our own personal tipping points.

I, almost, never voted Republican when I was a Democrat for most of the reasons given in the article, but I quit the Democrats, for Independent, for all the mirror image positions they hold and I didn't vote for Obama because I trusted him less than I trusted McCain, rather than because of any of the specifics.

However, I now tell myself that if Obama is as "pragmatic" in the future as he was in making use of associations in the past, then perhaps he will be be effective as president, regardless of what the single issue tipping point voters think.

The point here is that the tipping pointers usually sound like "the will of the people", meaning a majority vote however small, means winner takes all and the hell with the rest. That's what they do in Gaza and nearby places, and not what the US Constitution intended.

371 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:52:31pm

Fisc-cons are pissed and not voting republican. What are we going to do about it?

372 shiek al beif salami  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:52:48pm

A local land developer here is pushing for two million dollars in Federal funding for a bridge to his project, and it looks like he will get it. Multiply that by all the businesses, do-gooders, and other crooks in this country who suck at the Federal teat for their own benefit and who are not accountable to taxpayers.

373 logboy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:52:51pm

Wow... talk about hitting the nail right on the head.

374 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:53:07pm

re: #363 Basho

I think something many are missing is that they were rejecting the Republican Party as a whole. The brand has been damaged, so to speak. And pointing out how individual Democrats are just as bad or worse isn't addressing the root cause.

I don't think to many of us are missing that. We just don't buy into the change for change sakes sentiment.

375 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:53:11pm

re: #357 ssawtell

As soon as you want - go ahead and pick a definition for "human." My only point was that it's a bit silly to be offended by the statement of what is just a simple truth. It reminds me of people who are afraid of splenda because it's "chemicals," not natural. Yes, I have actually heard that argument.

YOU DARE SPEAK OF SPLENDA? YOU VILE, EVIL AND REPROBATE PERSON! OFF WITH YOU! OFF, I SAY!

376 bosforus  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:53:12pm

re: #335 shiek al beif salami

I'm not sure that most people know what fiscal conservatism is.


It's hard to know what fiscal conservatism is when you've never seen it in practice. I haven't exactly combed through Bush's decisions but I don't think he's a fiscal conservative and McCain was no example either.

377 Formercorpsman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:53:24pm

re: #346 Iron Fist

Thank you!

For as much finger pointing that is going around about the last election, this guy's argument is about as asinine as I have seen.

To claim you hold strong to all of the aspects of fiscal conservatism, and then vote for a guy who slips up talking to Joe the Plumber, wanting to spread the wealth around is just as much bullshit.

Moreover, while I am one of those pro-life folks who can come to the table and at least discuss finding some attempt at middle ground, the idea that your core vote lies within smaller government but voted for what will be without a doubt, the largest increase in government EVER does not hold water.

378 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:53:35pm

re: #364 cincinnati_kid37

- There are no Hetro-sexual parades.
- There are no MASS public displays of the Hetrosexual Physical, ala Zombie.


Never been to Mardi Gras? Try Carnival, it's fantastic.

379 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:53:42pm

re: #375 MandyManners

LOL

380 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:53:54pm

re: #364 cincinnati_kid37

Hey look dumb shit. You read this article (maybe) and the next thing you are doing is suggesting that this guy is gay and looking for attention. You got proof of that? If you don't than your comment is bigoted and you sir lack ANY CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. Go back to pounding you bible, against your head.

381 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:54:08pm

re: #321 Moe Katz

Bet ya can't say that fast.

You win! Heck, you can drop the last word in your post and you'd still be right!

382 ornery elephant  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:54:09pm

re: #303 medaura18586

Bush compromised though. The Religious Right was pushing for an outright ban on stem cell research. The fact that they didn't get what they sought does not change the depravity of their initial goal and the appropriateness of being disgusted by their motivations.

That's a complete crock, medaura - you know full well that it was embryonic stem cell research. And besides, where exactly is the headquarters of this "Religious Right" you speak of? You've been watching a bit too much of Chris Matthews.

383 y0kkles  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:54:16pm

1. The Republican Party has not been taken over by the religious right. This year's candidate was John McCain, hardly a social conservative. If the party gave into the religious right, Alan Keyes would have been the candidate.

2. We have far more to fear from the secular left than the religious right. They will stomp on your freedom and ruin this country far more than would the religious right.

3. We also have more to fear from radical Islam. The religious right opposed gay marriage. Radical Islam kills gay people.

It's really sad that Charles keeps posting this nonsense.

We lost because the media, universities, public school system, and Hollywood have all been hijacked by the left and continue to indoctrinate people with liberalism.

384 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:54:24pm

re: #322 Walter L. Newton

No. He's not. I think we ought to have a better definition of what free to be or free from religion really means. Then maybe we get somewhere.

385 NYCHardhat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:54:26pm

re: #368 Fearless Fred

When will this fucking guilt end? I'm so sick and tired of people walking on eggshells because some shit noone alive had anything to do with. As for fiscal conservatives and others voting Obama because your pissed with the Republicans, that is the most ignorant, suicidal excuse I've ever heard.

386 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:54:27pm

Full moon?

387 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:54:29pm

Evidence that the religio-conservative lecturing turns off voters eventually:

former Senator Rick Santorum
Democrat Kathleen Sebelius governor of KS
former Representative Marilyn Musgrave

Musgrave really was enough to turn even rational voters away from the GOP. And this guy is a practicing physician, so it's not like he's got lots of time to read blogs to learn how far to the extreme left Obama is.

Again, if he'd known, the rational vote from his stated philosophy would have been for McCain but against Musgrave.

388 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:54:30pm

Big tent people...think BIG TENT!

You guys keep fighting amongst yourselves and you'll never have a majority party again.

Ronald Reagan allowed the religious types under the same tent as the secular types.

Think about it.

389 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:54:37pm

re: #369 Cobber1

This is a sad day for me. As an almost daily visitor this will be may last visit to this great blog.

Unfortunately I no longer feel welcome here. My belief in the value of all life (even the un-born), my belief in a purposeful life (not a cosmic accident), and my belief in the Bible based structure of the US government, are now regularily attacked here. I can tell when I am no longer welcome.

I know I will be missed little, and most will say good riddance but I wanted to say, thanks for the ride. This really is a great blog. All the best.

Don't leave friend. I would say that I agree with you in the main and that GOP will need you in the years ahead. Stay here and fight for your principles.

390 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:54:55pm

Shelby Steele --
But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites -- especially today's younger generation -- proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer's ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

391 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:55:13pm

re: #386 Killgore Trout

Full moon?

That was Thursday.

392 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:55:14pm

re: #241 ArmyWife

This is the problem. I do not see where his sexual orientation adds to, or takes away from, his statements. Its a non issue here, as it is a non issue in most cases.

I don't - as I just explained. I ask for no control - or anyone's control - over what they do with their private life. Just don't ask for more than anyone else has.

Equality doesn't mean MORE for a group, regardless if they've been oppressed or not.

393 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:55:27pm

re: #378 Killgore Trout

Never been to Mardi Gras? Try Carnival, it's fantastic.

Try a football game!

394 jcbunga  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:55:27pm

re: #378 Killgore Trout

Never been to Mardi Gras? Try Carnival, it's fantastic.

I'm just gonna come out as a lesbian trapped in a man's body and see what Federal grants I can get.

395 Macker  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:55:48pm

re: #375 MandyManners

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! I use Splenda!

396 Red Sea Desjardini Tang  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:55:53pm

re: #320 cincinnati_kid37

re: #215 cincinnati_kid37

My guess is that this fellow is a homosexual.

Not that there's anything wrong with that..

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
___ ___-

Well, it's obvious that homosexuals want a lot more attention than everyone else right now. Wouldn't you agree. And do you think that's a good thing

Sounds like you are trying hard to get a lot of attention without even trying to say anything.

Is that a good thing?

397 shiek al beif salami  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:55:59pm

re: #376 bosforus

Bush's faith-based initiative really stuck in my craw. If churches don't want to fund their projects, why should the taxpayer - at gunpoint?

398 Fried Spam  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:56:15pm

re: #376 bosforus

It's hard to know what fiscal conservatism is when you've never seen it in practice. I haven't exactly combed through Bush's decisions but I don't think he's a fiscal conservative and McCain was no example either.

Carter was not a fiscal conservative, he was a fiscal idiot. Reagan was not a fiscal conservative, because he (rightly) wanted to run the USSR into the ground. Bush 1 was following in Reagan's footsteps, and wasn't a fiscal conservative. Bush 2 wasn't a fiscal conservative, largely because of 9/11 and two wars. Clinton was the closest thing we've had to a fiscal conservative in quite a while.

That's just sad.

399 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:56:18pm

re: #380 Walter L. Newton

While I understand and applaud your challenging his/her premise, your "pounding the Bible" remark was uncalled for. Nowhere in his comments did he/she refer to religion as a basis for his/her position.

400 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:56:36pm

re: #361 MandyManners

It wasn't a compliment, kid.

How else to respond to a 2x4 to the jaw ?

401 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:56:51pm

re: #393 Walter L. Newton

A trip to Brazil and a ticket to an NFL game are close enough in cost that I'll take the former.

402 Macker  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:57:05pm

re: #383 y0kkles

1. The Republican Party has not been taken over by the religious right. This year's candidate was John McCain, hardly a social conservative. If the party gave into the religious right, Alan Keyes would have been the candidate.

2. We have far more to fear from the secular left than the religious right. They will stomp on your freedom and ruin this country far more than would the religious right.

3. We also have more to fear from radical Islam. The religious right opposed gay marriage. Radical Islam kills gay people.

It's really sad that Charles keeps posting this nonsense.

We lost because the media, universities, public school system, and Hollywood have all been hijacked by the left and continue to indoctrinate people with liberalism.

There, fixed that for ya!

403 Jimmah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:57:07pm

re: #369 Cobber1


and my belief in the Bible based structure of the US government, are now regularily attacked here.

When you say attacked, what you actually mean is opposed, right? Well, if you can't handle that perhaps you need to stay away from the internet altogether.

404 NYCHardhat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:57:10pm

re: #369 Cobber1

Don't give up. There are alot of people that are stiff in their opinions, but its no reason to leave. Please, stick around.

405 FrogMarch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:57:23pm

On the flip side - Republican Religiophobia

406 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:57:49pm

re: #400 cincinnati_kid37

How else to respond to a 2x4 to the jaw ?

Duck

407 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:58:06pm

re: #386 Killgore Trout

Full moon?

yep! And its a pretty, November moon from my vantage point!

408 Geepers  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:58:11pm

Quilly Mammoth (#366),

The author of the article is a jack ass. The only ban of Embryonic Stem Cells is on Federal Funding, which Fiscal Conservatives should endorse.. He, and anyone else that uses the Danbury Letter ought to read both the letter from Danbury Baptist _and_ Jefferson's response.

And why did Prop 8 win in California? It wasn't because of the throngs of Republican Religious Right voters. This man is saying that a person's religious foundation cannot be used to determine that person's desires for how society should function.

This moron's entire organization is based on the following:

Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh argue that the current crisis in American health care is the result of decades of government interference and violations of individual rights in health insurance and medicine. The only moral and practical solution to the problem is not more government controls but instead to gradually and systematically transition to a rights-respecting, fully free market in those industries. From the Winter 2007-2008 issue of The Objective Standard.

Apparently not.

Thanks for typing out what I was thinking.

409 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:58:16pm

re: #362 Sharmuta

Where did the doctor say he voted for 0bama?

And go ahead and ignore the point, but there it is. Fisc-cons are pissed and not voting republican. What are we going to do about it?

Shar --- Obama seemed to poorly informed voters like the fiscal conservative. Tax cut for 95 % ... we didn't have the best candidate or campaign.

410 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:58:26pm

re: #391 Sharmuta

That was Thursday.

Blue Moon?

411 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:58:29pm

re: #384 ArmyWife

No. He's not. I think we ought to have a better definition of what free to be or free from religion really means. Then maybe we get somewhere.

That's a valid assessment of his comment. My definition would be that I don't want to hear a candidate talk about morals and values as if it's only the Christian churchgoers who have a monopoly on that.

412 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:58:33pm

re: #383 y0kkles

THAT is exactly what I am talking about. Our candidate was John McCain, a moderate, middle of the road, reach across the aisle centrist.

Our candidate was NOT Alan Keyes, was NOT Pat Robertson, was NOT Mitt Romney.

The writer is full of it.

413 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:58:34pm

re: #388 DesertSage

Big tent people...think BIG TENT!

You guys keep fighting amongst yourselves and you'll never have a majority party again.

Ronald Reagan allowed the religious types under the same tent as the secular types.

Think about it.

Some would argue that Pres. Reagan used the SoCons as a base to help put forth his FisCon agenda run by the rich conservatives.

414 Formercorpsman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:59:02pm

re: #360 yah

Bingo.

This was always my argument when I was in the military. If you had dependents, a spouse, needed to live off base, there was additional money you could apply for. BAQ, if memory serves me.

Applying my argument in today's world, I look at my brother, he is single, no kids, does pretty good for himself, and takes a bath on taxes.

My wife and I, decided to have children, and we get deductions for them.

I understand we have more mouths to feed, etc.

Ultimately, when you boil it down, having these responsibilities was of my own making. He works just as hard for his paycheck as I do, but he makes less for his labor.

That is not right.

415 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:59:03pm

re: #369 Cobber1

This is a sad day for me. As an almost daily visitor this will be may last visit to this great blog.

Unfortunately I no longer feel welcome here. My belief in the value of all life (even the un-born), my belief in a purposeful life (not a cosmic accident), and my belief in the Bible based structure of the US government, are now regularily attacked here. I can tell when I am no longer welcome.

I know I will be missed little, and most will say good riddance but I wanted to say, thanks for the ride. This really is a great blog. All the best.

Since when was the US government "Bible-based"? I could've sworn it used a lot of references that never appear in the Bible from the Roman republic to John Locke to the Iroquois Confederation.

416 Sol Roth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:59:13pm

Another way to approach your displeasure with the party's direction is to vote fore the party, then tell them loudly when the RNC does something you like.

Give them money when they select a running mate who lives Conservative principles but doesn't wish to impose theocratic mandates on the electorate. Someone who shows us how to live the life without mandating it.

You know, like Sarah Palin.

Or you could be a spoiled child and show everyone how superior you are while allowing the collectivists to take all those conservative values you hold so dear.

417 NYCHardhat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:59:17pm

re: #390 Fearless Fred

Thanks.

418 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:59:22pm
419 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:59:41pm

re: #395 Macker

*ahem*

Mandy don't do / tags.

420 Basho  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:59:51pm

re: #369 Cobber1

This is a sad day for me. As an almost daily visitor this will be may last visit to this great blog.

Unfortunately I no longer feel welcome here. My belief in the value of all life (even the un-born), my belief in a purposeful life (not a cosmic accident), and my belief in the Bible based structure of the US government, are now regularily attacked here. I can tell when I am no longer welcome.

I know I will be missed little, and most will say good riddance but I wanted to say, thanks for the ride. This really is a great blog. All the best.

Well, hope you stay. I don't think it is healthy for people to not be aware of other viewpoints. I guess I'm part of the pro-choice, pro-evolution, agnostic view that you feel is a majority here. But I myself have to deal with a majority that sees Global Warming as a hoax. Everyone here has had their views challenged at some point of another, but that's why I love it. It can't be found anywhere else without turning into a flame war.

421 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:59:52pm

re: #409 Fearless Fred

Shar --- Obama seemed to poorly informed voters like the fiscal conservative. Tax cut for 95 % ... we didn't have the best candidate or campaign.

Yes- I said that earlier- the dems painted themselves as the fiscally responsible ones. How can you expect fisc-cons to tolerate that on top of our party spending like fools?

Fisc-cons are pissed and not voting republican. What are we going to do about it?

422 Silhouette  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 6:59:57pm

...

423 ornery elephant  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:00:02pm

re: #380 Walter L. Newton

Hey look dumb shit. You read this article (maybe) and the next thing you are doing is suggesting that this guy is gay and looking for attention. You got proof of that? If you don't than your comment is bigoted and you sir lack ANY CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. Go back to pounding you bible, against your head.

I'd say if YOU had any critical thinking skills, you would have ended this comment without that last sentence.

424 Jimmah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:00:17pm

re: #386 Killgore Trout

Full moon?

425 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:00:34pm

re: #400 cincinnati_kid37

How else to respond to a 2x4 to the jaw ?

Ice packs?

426 Oingo Boingo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:00:48pm

It's frightening that this supposed doctor ever was a Republican... if, in fact, he ever was.

His post is almost as asinine a democrat claiming that he/she voted Republican because the democrats "embraced the fringe nutter left."

Well, doc... as others have pointed out, when you wake up and find yourself working for a mandated government health care system, you, too may discover that there is much more to the wanting then there is to the having.

So, doc, here ya go. You are a complete and utter moron... a blithering idiot who shouldn't be allowed within a mile of any sharp object, let alone a scalpel. And this reverse psychology bullshit? Keep it.

You want to go be a leftist? Then go be one, and good riddance. We won't miss you.

427 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:00:50pm

re: #401 Killgore Trout

A trip to Brazil and a ticket to an NFL game are close enough in cost that I'll take the former.

I've been to one professional football game, left at the end of the first quarter. I had enough of the macho displayed in the stands. I'll see you in Brazil.

428 Macker  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:00:57pm

re: #410 gmsc

Blue Moon?

Here's a Blue Moon I miss!

429 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:01:33pm

re: #380 Walter L. Newton

Hey look dumb shit. You read this article (maybe) and the next thing you are doing is suggesting that this guy is gay and looking for attention. You got proof of that? If you don't than your comment is bigoted and you sir lack ANY CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. Go back to pounding you bible, against your head.

pssst, excuse me, Walter, I'm a Bible thumper . . . , hope you'll still talk to me
///

430 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:01:34pm

re: #368 Fearless Fred

Now - do we need to throw those who are religious from our boat when the left wanted someone called "The Messiah"? Ironic, no?

Again, I do not want creationism taught in schools not out of fear of religion, but out of fear for lack of science. Teach it at home to your hearts content - or in a private school.

I do not want to pray to Allah 25 times a day either, and that has nothing to do with science ;). I do not want any discussion around religion to be 'taboo'. I do want right and wrong to be much, much less relative.

I want the Federal government to stop spending like Zsa Zsa Gabor on a manic day. I want my right to be a gun toting, bible clinging (should I turn into one), big darn diesel truck driving American to be protected. And I want to protect those who drive silly Priuses (Pruisi?), no gun owning, atheists just as strongly.

431 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:01:38pm

It's funny, this guy Obama attended a radical Christian church for 20 years, yet the Democrat party still embraced him.

The Democrats have learned how to embrace religious types, yet the Republicans try and purge them. No wonder why the Democrats are the majority party...they have a big tent.

BIG TENT people...you all should give it a try!

432 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:01:47pm

re: #256 MandyManners

That is precisely why I--and many others--find her to be immensely appealing.

If I want moral/religious instruction, I look to my Bible and my preacher. If I want political leadership, I look to my Constitution and my elected representatives.

So when I read a letter from someone who purports to be the heart and soul of the Republican Party yet who's been alienated from the Party in 2008 because of how far it's swung into the thrall of the Religious Right -- in a year when demonstrably the Religious Right has had the least influence in the Party it's had in several Presidential cycles -- I call bullshit.

As a conservative, I personally think that the Republican Party should adopt the conservative values of promoting smaller, cleaner and more efficient and effective government; a lower tax burden on the private sector; strong defense and US leadership of the international community, including standing for democracy and free enterprise and against genocide and tyranny; and supporting societal change only by the consensus of the people, not by the fiat of unelected judges. I think the last point ought to be drawn so that social conservatives feel they can be at home in the Party just as much as social libertarians: that each group feels they can advocate for what they believe without feeling that they have the right to exclude or expel the other group.

433 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:01:55pm

re: #378 Killgore Trout

Never been to Mardi Gras? Try Carnival, it's fantastic.

I stand corrected to some extent, but these are not "happenings" for the purpose of hetrosexuals gaining some sort of advantage within society.

Again, I have no problem with how anyone wants to live as long as they don't abuse someone else. And for an example, the Homo-extravaganza did abuse someone else. Surely, there were children exposed to the public sex. This is one of the reasons for the applicable laws.

434 Western Chauvinist  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:02:39pm

You have got to be joking! This argument is coming from all kinds of "conservatives", but frankly I think if they are conservative, they are anti-religious as well (you too Charles?). The hate expressed is four to one from the left/social liberals against the right/social conservatives. Didn't you see it in the treatment of Sarah Palin versus - oh, let me just pick someone at random - Vice President Joe "I'm a clown" Biden?

I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

And so you voted for Barack Obama? You are either lying or you are deeply self-deceived.

But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a ”wall of separation“ between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.

This just galls me. The founders knew very well that they wanted a religious society capable of self-government through an ethical system of objective values (in America's case, based on the Bible). They wanted the government to be impartial to the many different religions, but they did not believe a virtuous society was possible if the people were free *from* religion. Our laws (public policy) have always been an enforcement of the agreed upon morals of our Judeo-Christian society.

And now, despite Californians (the Left coast!) voting to keep the long-agreed upon standards in marriage (and not incidentally sticking it to activist judges), most people wanting some restrictions on abortion (parental notification, ban late-term abortions, etc.), and embryonic stem cell research being a gratuitous destruction of human potential because of technological advances, Republicans are supposedly losing because of social conservatism.

BTW - did anyone else notice how anachronistic the term "Religious Right" seems? Trust me. As a serious Catholic who has learned that Catholics voted more for Obama than even the national average, I can state the "Religious Right" is officially dead. Didn't anyone notice how "successful" we've been in getting abortion banned?

This guy and his many "conservative" counterparts are delusional.

435 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:03:01pm

re: #433 cincinnati_kid37

Yeah- because TV doesn't introduce our kids to sex.

436 jaunte  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:03:02pm

re: #405 FrogMarch

I agree with a lot of what Simberg says in that article, and he gives an especially good reason to keep joining against the Democrats (no matter what the other disgreements may be) here:
'...while I find the anti-freedom strains of both parties equally dismaying, the Democrats are a lot better at implementing their big-government intrusions..."

[Link: www.transterrestrial.com...]

437 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:03:03pm

re: #380 Walter L. Newton

Hey look dumb shit. You read this article (maybe) and the next thing you are doing is suggesting that this guy is gay and looking for attention. You got proof of that? If you don't than your comment is bigoted and you sir lack ANY CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. Go back to pounding you bible, against your head.


That last sentence was a tad too much, Walter.

438 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:03:10pm

re: #424 Jimmah

[Link: uk.youtube.com...]

I used to sing that song on long car trips when I was younger:

"I see the water billa risn'.
I see plunger on the way.
I see chocolatecake and icn'.
I see bad rhymes today.

"Don't go in tonight,
Well, it's bound to take your life,
There's a bathroom on the right."

439 Jimmah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:03:13pm

re: #431 DesertSage

Obama is about as religious as I am. And that's not much.

440 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:03:17pm

re: #425 MandyManners

Ice packs?

And a heartfelt apology, along with pleas to not be hit again?

441 Wendya  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:03:18pm

re: #362 Sharmuta

Fisc-cons are pissed and not voting republican. What are we going to do about it?

I'm a fiscal conservative who voted for McCain.

I'm also an adult and not given to childish temper tantrums.

If others want to behave like children, I'm not inclined to pander to them.

442 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:03:34pm

re: #429 outsidephilly

pssst, excuse me, Walter, I'm a Bible thumper . . . , hope you'll still talk to me
///

Ok, I will. For other Lizards, my comment stands, I call them how I see them.

443 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:03:38pm

re: #411 Walter L. Newton

I agree with you. So long as we can talk about morals and values as a whole. The two do not need to be tied together.

444 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:03:39pm

re: #380 Walter L. Newton

Hey look dumb shit. You read this article (maybe) and the next thing you are doing is suggesting that this guy is gay and looking for attention. You got proof of that? If you don't than your comment is bigoted and you sir lack ANY CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. Go back to pounding you bible, against your head.

Are you trying to make the case no one posits a theory around here?
Peace man.

445 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:03:42pm

I'm sorry, but I am beginning to think that the whole "abortion" issue is a false flag for the democrats/liberals to use against conservatives.

Reagan was president from 80-88 - no move against abortion. Bush 41 was there from 88-92, no move against it. Bush 43 was there from 00-08, no move against it.

It is a fear tactic used by liberals to try and goad people into voting against conservatives. Regardless of the fact that it has been a "plank" of the republican party, replublicans know they will not be able to enact it. It is a statement for life. And it satisfies SoCons, even though it will not ever be enacted, unless somehow, the Supreme Court realizes how bad a decision Row-V-Wade was.

And then it goes back to the states, where it should have been in the first place.

446 shiek al beif salami  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:03:46pm

re: #432 stuiec

The problem is that we no longer know what the purpose of government is.

447 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:04:22pm

re: #428 Macker

Here's a Blue Moon I miss!

If you like things that are Smurf-blue and marshmallow-sweet, boy have I got an LGFer to introduce you to!

448 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:04:24pm
449 MrSnuggles  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:04:37pm

Hey, if you people want the Republican party to go to bat without me and all of my fellow religious conservatives, be my guest. But good luck winning a single election ever again.

450 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:04:40pm

re: #440 FurryOldGuyJeans

And a heartfelt apology, along with pleas to not be hit again?

Were I come from that's called begging? Not that there is anything wrong with that?

451 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:04:45pm

re: #398 Fried Spam

Clinton was the closest thing we've had to a fiscal conservative in quite a while.

Are you stark raving mad? It was his fiscal policies that were the direct cause of the Frannie and Freddie implosion. The extreme economic reaction to what should have been a natural downturn in the housing market, is a direct result of his lack of fiscal conservatism.

452 Macker  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:04:45pm

re: #445 Intrepid

Ding Ding Ding Ding! We have a WINNAH!

453 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:04:59pm

re: #439 Jimmah

Obama is about as religious as I am. And that's not much.

He is VERY religious...He worships Himself daily.

454 doriangrey  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:05:14pm

re: #71 taxfreekiller

Dr. Know It All,

Ever go to one precinct meeting in your life?
Ever go to a state convention, ever run for office, ever do any thing but
blow your own horn about how you got Obama into office .

dumb ass sob
thing is there are 10,000,000 other dumb ass sob's and 62,000,000 full running commies who drank the commie kool aid.

gonna be a heavy load to haul back up hill, and this know it all sob will
not be around to help, he will be working two shifts in the Federal underpaid unhealthy system the "big O hole" digs for him.

RPTFLMAO... TFK hits the bulls eye dead center again... As usual...

455 Macker  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:05:15pm

re: #447 gmsc

If you like things that are Smurf-blue and marshmallow-sweet, boy have I got an LGFer to introduce you to!

Thanks, but I'm taken!

/Yay

456 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:05:18pm

re: #369 Cobber1

This is a sad day for me. As an almost daily visitor this will be may last visit to this great blog.

Unfortunately I no longer feel welcome here. My belief in the value of all life (even the un-born), my belief in a purposeful life (not a cosmic accident), and my belief in the Bible based structure of the US government, are now regularily attacked here. I can tell when I am no longer welcome.

I know I will be missed little, and most will say good riddance but I wanted to say, thanks for the ride. This really is a great blog. All the best.

Sheesh Cobber, dont run off! Don't be so darn black or white, all or none. You are pro life? My guess is that at least half of the posters here are as well. Why run away when we NEED to have the discussion re: how to sort thru where our party goes from here! Please don't do the kleenex thingy and leave like that!
Shakes head...life isn't *it has to be my way* or I take up my marbles and go home.

457 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:05:32pm

I don't care what this writer or his sycophants think.
Thanks to him and his ilk, we are in a world of shit.

458 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:05:44pm

re: #431 DesertSage

It's funny, this guy Obama attended a radical Christian church for 20 years, yet the Democrat party still embraced him.

The Democrats have learned how to embrace religious types, yet the Republicans try and purge them. No wonder why the Democrats are the majority party...they have a big tent.

BIG TENT people...you all should give it a try!

What's the Right's version of religious radicalism?

Let's not go there. Please.

459 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:05:54pm

re: #442 Walter L. Newton

Ok, I will. For other Lizards, my comment stands, I call them how I see them.

WHEW . . . , cause I'd miss not having ya to talk to
///

460 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:05:55pm

re: #413 MandyManners

Some would argue that Pres. Reagan used the SoCons as a base to help put forth his FisCon agenda run by the rich conservatives.

Whatever he did...it worked.

Everyone was welcome under the GOP tent...from SoCon's to FisCon's to Log Cabin Republicans. If one faction keeps trying to purge another faction...you can say hello to Obama/Pelosi/Reid until at least 2016...if not longer.

461 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:05:58pm

re: #441 Wendya

I'm a fisc-con who voted McCain too, but now Rush is telling me to leave. That's sad to me because it was Rush who helped bring about my conversion to the right. So- I'm not sure if it's a temper tantrum to leave when one is not wanted, and I think that's the message most fisc-cons feel they're getting from the GOP.

462 Basho  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:05:59pm

re: #380 Walter L. Newton

Hey look dumb shit. You read this article (maybe) and the next thing you are doing is suggesting that this guy is gay and looking for attention. You got proof of that? If you don't than your comment is bigoted and you sir lack ANY CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. Go back to pounding you bible, against your head.

I don't think he referred to religion. There are more reasons than religion for people to be bigoted against homosexuals. Even I think that bible line went too far.

463 Jimmah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:06:00pm

re: #453 FurryOldGuyJeans

Heh.

464 Dasher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:06:12pm

re: #2 Sharmuta
Hence, I believe the Republican Party should choose the first path - the path of limited government, separation of church and state, and protection of individual rights.

Exactly!

"separation of church and state" - exists no where in in the constitution.

465 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:06:16pm

JONAH GOLDBERG: The idea that social liberalism and economic conservatism can coexist easily is not well supported by the evidence.

466 jcbunga  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:06:23pm
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This isn't complicated.

How has this come to mean a local court can't display the Ten Commandments? Or that a town can't have a nativity scene? Or that certain members of Congress don't say "under God" with the Pledge of Allegiance?

What's accepted as prudent today is meddling. The post-hippie whiny babies believe they have the right not to be offended. I have news for them--grow up and prepare to be disappointed.

We have allowed the nation to be incrementally shoved where it was never intended to be.

467 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:06:30pm

re: #435 Sharmuta

Yeah- because TV doesn't introduce our kids to sex.

Who said I condoned TV. My view of TC is contained within Frank Zappa's tune - The Slime.

468 Randall Gross  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:06:31pm

We lost many conservatives voted for Obama. People need to get that through their head and cope with it. We need to ask why, denying the reality is not going to help us win 2010, and that's a census year & reapportionment + new districts after. It's very important that we not cede anymore ground.

The stats are provided here at Big Lizards

How much of it was the Social conservative's anti science stance? I don't know a way to determine that, but it sure didn't help. This is not anti religion, it's about a small minority that has undue sway on the agenda.

469 Red Sea Desjardini Tang  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:06:43pm

re: #369 Cobber1

re: #369 Cobber1

This is a sad day for me. As an almost daily visitor this will be may last visit to this great blog.

Why leave because you have disagreements? Will you go somewhere where you just say ditto ditto all day?

Unfortunately I no longer feel welcome here. My belief in the value of all life (even the un-born), my belief in a purposeful life (not a cosmic accident), and my belief in the Bible based structure of the US government, are now regularily attacked here. I can tell when I am no longer welcome.

You are welcome to stay. It is your choice whether to tolerate reading that there are are those who also value life, while making a distinction between real and potential, and who read the constitution as protecting you as much as those who see no evidence in a bible structure of the government, or a god for that matter.

Do you see all difference of opinion as attack? If so perhaps the ditto blogs is where you should go.

I know I will be missed little, and most will say good riddance but I wanted to say, thanks for the ride. This really is a great blog. All the best.

I have this feeling that nobody writes a post like this without checking for replies. So when you have sobered up, please come back.

470 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:07:04pm

re: #437 MandyManners

That last sentence was a tad too much, Walter.

Ok, ok, ok, I apologize. I'm mad. This asshole "kid37" read an article that has nothing to do with the writers sexual preferences and the next thing we see is this fuckwad claiming the guy is gay.

And he goes merrily on thinking that's fine.

471 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:07:07pm

re: #433 cincinnati_kid37

I stand corrected to some extent, but these are not "happenings" for the purpose of hetrosexuals gaining some sort of advantage within society.

Again, I have no problem with how anyone wants to live as long as they don't abuse someone else. And for an example, the Homo-extravaganza did abuse someone else. Surely, there were children exposed to the public sex. This is one of the reasons for the applicable laws.

That is a MUNICIPAL issue.

472 itellu3times  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:07:13pm

Meanwhile, Bill Roggio seems to suggest an upcoming crisis in Afghanistan, the NATO supply route being closed by Pakistan.

473 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:07:32pm

re: #435 Sharmuta

Yeah- because TV doesn't introduce our kids to sex.

Not like the Folsom Street Fair!

474 Osama Bin Asshat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:07:35pm

re: #445 Intrepid

I'm sorry, but I am beginning to think that the whole "abortion" issue is a false flag for the democrats/liberals to use against conservatives.

Reagan was president from 80-88 - no move against abortion. Bush 41 was there from 88-92, no move against it. Bush 43 was there from 00-08, no move against it.

It is a fear tactic used by liberals to try and goad people into voting against conservatives. Regardless of the fact that it has been a "plank" of the republican party, replublicans know they will not be able to enact it. It is a statement for life. And it satisfies SoCons, even though it will not ever be enacted, unless somehow, the Supreme Court realizes how bad a decision Row-V-Wade was.

And then it goes back to the states, where it should have been in the first place.


You're right...by co-opting the media and a strong feminist movement they have effectively killed the debate on abortion...the repubs will never win again until they can COMMUNICATE what their real positions are!

475 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:07:57pm

re: #371 Sharmuta

Fisc-cons are pissed and not voting republican. What are we going to do about it?

Besides pundits I don't see any evidence of that. I believe that they are angry about the pull that the Religious Right has on the party, but I am not convinced that they voted for a Big Government Marxist because of it.

In fact, exit polling showed that the remaining undecided's trended more to Obama then to McCain because they didn't like the way the Republicans had handled the economy...Bush's Economy. What percentage of those were Fiscal Conservatives that are Socially Liberal?

Polls indicate that some 11% of registered Republicans voted for Obama (28% of Hillary voters voted for McCain). Let's assume that all 11% are Fiscal Conservatives who feel like the Dr. Tshieh. What percentage of Republican voters do we think are RR? Two or three times that 11%?

I think the thing for Republicans to do is reach out to the voters who voted for Prop 8 and convince them that the Democrat Party does not reflect their Family Values. The Fiscons can either come along or vote Ron Paul.

476 FrogMarch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:08:00pm

re: #431 DesertSage

It's funny, this guy Obama attended a radical Christian church for 20 years, yet the Democrat party still embraced him.

The Democrats have learned how to embrace religious types, yet the Republicans try and purge them. No wonder why the Democrats are the majority party...they have a big tent.

BIG TENT people...you all should give it a try!

Indeed. Coalition building is key. bridge burning won't do it.
I don't always like the tactics of certain members of the big tent, but we cannot purge the party and make it "perfect". Perfection isn't on the menu. Still, the argument is that the social cons have taken over, and the fiscal cons have been sent to their rooms without supper. Meanwhile, the Marxists have stolen the goose.

477 Geepers  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:08:07pm

Oingo Boingo (#426),

It's frightening that this supposed doctor ever was a Republican... if, in fact, he ever was.

From many years experience a little warning bell goes off for me whenever someone has to prefece their opinion with "I'm a Republican, but..."

478 Crusty  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:08:08pm

When will this bullshit end?

It wasn't abortion or stem cell research or recognizing sexual deviants as married couples or Sarah Palin knowing what the capital of Kazakhstan is.

It was the news media turning itself into a 24/7 Obama infomercial.

If the press were impartial, that mau-mauing community organizer son of a bitch wouldn't have stayed on the ballot for a month.

The enemy is not us, it is them.

Next thread, please.

479 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:08:09pm

re: #462 Basho

I don't think he referred to religion. There are more reasons than religion for people to be bigoted against homosexuals. Even I think that bible line went too far.

See my 470 to Mandy, I apologized.

480 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:08:10pm

re: #440 FurryOldGuyJeans

And a heartfelt apology, along with pleas to not be hit again?

I'm not owed an apology.

481 samjohnson  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:08:34pm

I supported Mc'Cain for national security reasons, but agree with the author. Most of the problems our great country faces will require science and technology to solve. The Republican party is increasingly in the camp of the religious anti-science right, with its creationist bias. Enough!

482 experiencedtraveller  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:08:51pm

re: #371 Sharmuta

Fisc-cons are pissed and not voting republican. What are we going to do about it?

Stop talking about divorcing the so-cons for starters. Social conservatives tend to be fiscally prudent (until they get to DC...)

483 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:08:53pm

re: #448 Iron Fist

could you repeat that please ...

484 Mich-again  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:09:05pm

Just to clarify one thing to the author of that temper tantrum aimed at the GOP.. Many of the real social conservatives didn't support McCain/Palin because they thought it was an abomination that a woman would put her career over her the needs of her family. I remember following spinoff links to some fire and brimstone preacher sites after McCain chose Palin and how they could no longer support the Republican Party because of it. I actually thought the GOP should use some of that nonsense as campaign material to show the world that the GOP had now officially pissed off the Religious Right.

485 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:09:08pm

re: #464 Dasher

"separation of church and state" - exists no where in in the constitution.

You're right. It is, however, common language used to paraphrase the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

486 Dasher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:09:11pm

re: #431 DesertSage

It's funny, this guy Obama attended a radical Christian church for 20 years, yet the Democrat party still embraced him.

The Democrats have learned how to embrace religious types, yet the Republicans try and purge them. No wonder why the Democrats are the majority party...they have a big tent.

BIG TENT people...you all should give it a try!

You don't quite understand. Religion does not matter to Democrats only if the so called religious person is a Democrat. Otherwise it matters a lot.

487 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:09:20pm

re: #400 cincinnati_kid37

How else to respond to a 2x4 to the jaw ?

Duct tape might work

488 guitarguy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:09:22pm

Anyone know what Thomas Jefferson's views on partial-birth abortion were?

489 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:09:23pm

re: #458 MandyManners

What's the Right's version of religious radicalism?

Let's not go there. Please.

Well, on this site if you believe that God created the universe, and therefore created life, you're considered a religious radical by some.

490 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:09:25pm

re: #480 MandyManners

I'm not owed an apology.

Meh ;)

491 FrogMarch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:09:39pm

re: #465 Fearless Fred

JONAH GOLDBERG: The idea that social liberalism and economic conservatism can coexist easily is not well supported by the evidence.

Nice addition.

492 ArmyWife  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:09:41pm

Night all. Carry on without me. I think if we keep talking about this we will realize there IS room in this tent for the SoFisCons (did I get that right, Mandy?).

493 sleepyone  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:09:44pm

re: #371 Sharmuta

Fisc-cons are pissed and not voting republican. What are we going to do about it?

You're right that many fiscal conservatives are upset with the way things have been going lately. But not voting for someone because of some perceived adherence to the religious right is not the answer.

If any fiscal conservatives did not vote for McCain due to the fact that he is no friend to any sort of conservative then I can understand that under normal circumstances. But this election was not under normal circumstances. The time to cast that sort of vote was during the primaries. Any "conservative" not voting Republican this time lost the ability to describe themselves as anything but babies in my opinion.

494 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:09:46pm

re: #460 DesertSage

Whatever he did...it worked.

Everyone was welcome under the GOP tent...from SoCon's to FisCon's to Log Cabin Republicans. If one faction keeps trying to purge another faction...you can say hello to Obama/Pelosi/Reid until at least 2016...if not longer.

Perhaps it worked because the two sides of the same coin had not been brought together in such a manner before.

495 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:09:49pm

re: #461 Sharmuta

I'm a fisc-con who voted McCain too, but now Rush is telling me to leave. That's sad to me because it was Rush who helped bring about my conversion to the right. So- I'm not sure if it's a temper tantrum to leave when one is not wanted, and I think that's the message most fisc-cons feel they're getting from the GOP.

... telling you to leave?

496 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:09:56pm

re: #442 Walter L. Newton

sorry--i lurk and dont post much- but- walter- the last few weeks your comments have really become more insulting and over the top. when you are calm, your posts are fascinating. but when you become insulting and your language becomes crude, not so much.

497 Dasher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:10:01pm

re: #485 Sharmuta

You're right. It is, however, common language used to paraphrase the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Only by Liberals and the MSM.

498 Salem  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:10:05pm

re: #363 Basho

I think something many are missing is that they were rejecting the Republican Party as a whole. The brand has been damaged, so to speak. And pointing out how individual Democrats are just as bad or worse isn't addressing the root cause.

Right, it's just promoting one unacceptable evil over another.

499 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:10:05pm

re: #433 cincinnati_kid37

I stand corrected to some extent, but these are not "happenings" for the purpose of hetrosexuals gaining some sort of advantage within society.


It's about getting laid. People are people.

500 Karridine  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:10:09pm

Okay, Zomboid One, you're linked at www.ICallBS.net

We're proud to join the celebration of winning the Iraq component of the World War on Terrorism.

501 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:10:10pm

re: #475 Quilly Mammoth

Enjoy four more years of President 0bama.

502 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:10:35pm

re: #485 Sharmuta

You're right. It is, however, common language used to paraphrase the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

common lately ... and wrong

503 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:10:44pm

re: #492 ArmyWife

Night all. Carry on without me. I think if we keep talking about this we will realize there IS room in this tent for the SoFisCons (did I get that right, Mandy?).

I don't want to be a SoFishCon. I keep telling everyone here I don't like fish!

504 hazzyday  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:10:52pm

re: #383 y0kkles

I would agree here that this authors idea that the party has been taken over by the religious right is a myopic one. This seems to be the case of the author getting excited about one or two issues and then painting his world outlook on the GOP based on his hurt feelings.

But the point is that the socon have to make room for some liberal views in the party.

505 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:11:00pm

re: #380 Walter L. Newton

Actually, Walt, if you go to the guy's website and read what he writes the only reason he could make the claims he makes is if one of his agendas is threatened. I think it is embryonic stem cell research cause he's a doc.

That, sir, is critical thinking.

506 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:11:21pm

re: #492 ArmyWife

Night all. Carry on without me. I think if we keep talking about this we will realize there IS room in this tent for the SoFisCons (did I get that right, Mandy?).

g'night to you, Army - I, too, am signing off for the night . . . see y'all in the mornin'

507 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:11:35pm
508 Wendya  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:11:45pm

re: #461 Sharmuta

I'm a fisc-con who voted McCain too, but now Rush is telling me to leave.

I stopped listening to Rush and the other talking heads 3 years ago... about the same time I yanked the satellite dish off the roof and canceled service.

My politics haven't changed since I cast my first vote for Reagan. I know full well I'm not ever going to get what I want when it comes to change in government but I feel an obligation to go to the polls and use my vote to limit the damage as much as I'm able. It would be nice to dream about an alternative party that would be an echo chamber for everything I believe but it's not going to happen.

509 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:11:45pm

re: #465 Fearless Fred

I stopped paying attention to Jonnah Goldberg when he starting complaining about people with Darwin fish bumper stickers.

510 notutopia  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:12:41pm

re: #215 cincinnati_kid37

? Are you on the right thread?

511 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:12:46pm

re: #482 experiencedtraveller

Stop talking about divorcing the so-cons for starters. Social conservatives tend to be fiscally prudent (until they get to DC...)

A-HA!

512 Jimmah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:12:50pm

re: #438 gmsc

I used to sing that song on long car trips when I was younger:

"I see the water billa risn'.
I see plunger on the way.
I see chocolatecake and icn'.
I see bad rhymes today.

"Don't go in tonight,
Well, it's bound to take your life,
There's a bathroom on the right."

Lol. Reminds me of my favourite Elvis song from when I was a kid - "Return December!"

513 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:13:39pm

re: #486 Dasher

You don't quite understand. Religion does not matter to Democrats only if the so called religious person is a Democrat. Otherwise it matters a lot.

80+ percent of Americans believe in God. The Democrats have figured that out and are no longer purging the religious people from their tent. They have figured out how to have a big tent and welcome everyone under it. They have developed a majority party because of it.

514 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:13:55pm

re: #501 Sharmuta

Enjoy four more years of President 0bama.

So you are saying that the Republicans should chuck 30-40% of their base? That doesn't make sense.

515 jcbunga  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:14:05pm

re: #512 Jimmah

Lol. Reminds me of my favourite Elvis song from when I was a kid - "Return December!"

LOL!

Mine was "'scuse me while I kiss this guy" by Henrixx

516 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:14:09pm

re: #449 MrSnuggles

Hey, if you people want the Republican party to go to bat without me and all of my fellow religious conservatives, be my guest. But good luck winning a single election ever again.

To be quite honest, snug, that is precisely the attitude we DONT need. This is whiny selfish 6 year old's behavior!
And, furrther, I am not interested in whiny votes: if we win, there is 4 years of listening to you snivelers, if we lose, ther is no end to the grief.
Grow up.

517 Osama Bin Asshat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:14:13pm

It startled me to see conservatives tripping over themselves when it was released that Palin is pro-life even in rape cases.

0.000000001% of rapes end up in conception, but the media ran with it and Palin looked like an extremist. Can't win if the media can control the issues.

518 sandspur  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:14:28pm

re: #149 ArmyWife

Its going on my Blog. All 12 of my readers will spread the word! Seriously, ArmyHusband will be thrilled to share this with his uniformed buddies.

I will link it on my tiny, insignificant blog, too, and I will link it on Facebook so all the kids can see it and join in.

519 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:14:56pm

re: #489 DesertSage

Well, on this site if you believe that God created the universe, and therefore created life, you're considered a religious radical by some.

I'm talking about the convential wisdom view of the two extremes. And, I mean EXTREMES.

Liberation theology v. Christian Identity.

520 FrogMarch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:15:05pm

re: #436 jaunte

'...while I find the anti-freedom strains of both parties equally dismaying, the Democrats are a lot better at implementing their big-government intrusions..."

[Link: www.transterrestrial.com...]

That seems to be the point I come back to. No matter how disappointed or disgruntled I am as a customer, the democrats are worse. We get to find that out all over again.
Still, most everyone agrees with the statement from the link: "I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans."
It goes in circles after a while.

521 Randall Gross  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:15:21pm

re: #492 ArmyWife

Night all. Carry on without me. I think if we keep talking about this we will realize there IS room in this tent for the SoFisCons (did I get that right, Mandy?).

Sofiscons... sounds like those transformable robot toys my kids used to play with... :)

522 CharlieBravo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:15:36pm

re: #395 Macker

Splenda is good stuff, came from some folks trying to come up with a new pesticide. One was told to 'test' it... and thought he had been told to 'taste' it.

The bug population lived happily ever after.

523 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:15:39pm

re: #494 MandyManners

Perhaps it worked because the two sides of the same coin had not been brought together in such a manner before.

Bingo!

And they were brought together in that manner because they had a leader (Reagan) who understood what it meant to build a coalition. A BIG TENT!

524 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:15:42pm

re: #448 Iron Fist

There's little we can do except watch them twist as Obama ass-rapes them with his policies. They'll have to deal with the higher taxes and massive spending with the rest of us.

Of course, the fiscal Conservatives are pissed off at the GOP for spending like a drunken sailor, not for the positions on abortion or gay marriage (no one of consequence in either party is pro-gay marriage. Not Obama, not Blinkey Pelosie, not anyone)

They could support the Party while pushing the Republican Party to move back to the Right on spending. That would be something we could both agree on.

There's little we can do except watch them twist as Obama ass-rapes them with his policies. They'll have to deal with the higher taxes and massive spending with the rest of us.

Of course, the fiscal Conservatives are pissed off at the GOP for spending like a drunken sailor, not for the positions on abortion or gay marriage (no one of consequence in either party is pro-gay marriage. Not Obama, not Blinkey Pelosie, not anyone)

They could support the Party while pushing the Republican Party to move back to the Right on spending. That would be something we could both agree on.

As ever, Iron Fist, you show yourself to be a wise man. The things that can be agreed on by all here are that the GOP needs to demonstrate restraint on spending and must remain anti-totalitarian.

525 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:15:46pm

I want to make sure EVERYONE see this. I apologize for my "pounding bible" remark. It was over the top.

(But no, kid37, I am not apologizing to you for my other remarks. You come across as a bigoted homophobe, plain and simple. Go cry about the gays over on WorldNutDaily)

526 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:16:10pm

re: #270 outsidephilly

How is your mom doing?

Declining, sadly. But it is the natural course of the disease. I met with a representative of a non-profit group the other day who is going to approve my application for financial assistance for Mom to go to adult day care two days a week. That will be a big help!

Mom has gone to the Senior Citizens' Center for years, but when she started wandering, they told me that she had to move to the Adult Day Care area. But it costs as much as 20 dollars a day! Mom can't afford that.

So it's great that this non-profit is going to help us - and Mom gets to go to the Senior Center/Day Care, and I get a break!

Poor Mom - she keeps fretting about my Dad and why he hasn't come home from work yet. She scours phone books looking for his work phone number, worrying herself to pieces. I can't lie to her - she doesn't believe me if I do - so I have to keep telling her that Pop died almost 8 years ago. When she scoffs, I give her his Guest Book from the funeral home. She settles down then.

Tears me up, I tell ya.

527 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:16:23pm

OK, I'm leaving now. I believe I've answered everyone. If you think me a troll, delete me. Like I give a damn.

You're a Daisy if ya do. :)

In potentially "going", let me just say that Society has a lot of problems, and it isn't going to help anyone to elevate any group above any other. ANd to the point of this post:
- The GOP didn't lose my vote.
- The GOP didn't impress me that they want to force religion on anyone
- The Media and some homosexual friends of mine DO impress me that they believe the GOP is God, Guns, and Gays, which I believe is an illustion totally perpetrated by the MSM who constantly mis-represent the concept of Conservative, which to me simply means 'Supportive of the Constitution", and in favor of small government, Cheaper government and More freedom.

Outside of this Homo-sex yourselves to oblivion for all I care, just don't ask from more from society than what I am afforded as a Hetro, good looking White guy.

528 Tigger2005  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:16:42pm

re: #253 Killgore Trout

Trust me, I've heard this story before. I only voting Republican once so losing my vote is no big deal. But as I've written about before, my mother and stepfather (both lifelong Republicans) cast their first even Dem votes for Obama. Their reasons (with the addition of Palin as VP) are detailed in the letter Charles linked to. You can pretend these people don't exist but they do and they vote.

No one is pretending they don't exist. No one is ignoring their reasons. You keep claiming this but it's false. What people are saying is that these reasons are not good enough. Maybe they THINK they are, but they're not. Any other election, any other time, some other candidate on the Dem side, maybe they would have been. But electing Obama may well prove to be a suicidal decision for this country.

529 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:16:45pm

re: #512 Jimmah

Lol. Reminds me of my favourite Elvis song from when I was a kid - "Return December!"

My mom's favorite song used to be "Reverend Blue Jeans". It was years before she found out it was "Forever in Blue Jeans"!

530 Geepers  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:16:46pm

Intrepid (#445),

I'm sorry, but I am beginning to think that the whole "abortion" issue is a false flag for the democrats/liberals to use against conservatives.

Reagan was president from 80-88 - no move against abortion. Bush 41 was there from 88-92, no move against it. Bush 43 was there from 00-08, no move against it.

Mr. Hsieh Says:

But I didn’t vote for a single Republican in 2008. I’ve become increasingly alienated by the Republicans“ embrace of the religious ”social conservative“ agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

In fact, none of those things are true of the Republican Party.

This guy's ain't a Conservative, he sounds suspiciously like a typical whiny Liberal.

531 Dasher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:17:08pm

re: #513 DesertSage

80+ percent of Americans believe in God. The Democrats have figured that out and are no longer purging the religious people from their tent. They have figured out how to have a big tent and welcome everyone under it. They have developed a majority party because of it.

One election where 1/2 the electorate were duped does not make religion the problem.

532 jaunte  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:17:35pm

re: #520 FrogMarch

Unless we first think about these:
'limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms..."
the other issues are not going to be resolved in any way we would prefer.

533 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:17:37pm

re: #526 Intrepid

Declining, sadly. But it is the natural course of the disease. I met with a representative of a non-profit group the other day who is going to approve my application for financial assistance for Mom to go to adult day care two days a week. That will be a big help!

Mom has gone to the Senior Citizens' Center for years, but when she started wandering, they told me that she had to move to the Adult Day Care area. But it costs as much as 20 dollars a day! Mom can't afford that.

So it's great that this non-profit is going to help us - and Mom gets to go to the Senior Center/Day Care, and I get a break!

Poor Mom - she keeps fretting about my Dad and why he hasn't come home from work yet. She scours phone books looking for his work phone number, worrying herself to pieces. I can't lie to her - she doesn't believe me if I do - so I have to keep telling her that Pop died almost 8 years ago. When she scoffs, I give her his Guest Book from the funeral home. She settles down then.

Tears me up, I tell ya.

Honestly... is there a way that this non-profit can take donations that are targeted to your mom?

534 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:18:04pm

re: #525 Walter L. Newton

I want to make sure EVERYONE see this. I apologize for my "pounding bible" remark. It was over the top.

(But no, kid37, I am not apologizing to you for my other remarks. You come across as a bigoted homophobe, plain and simple. Go cry about the gays over on WorldNutDaily)

Hey Walter, you ever see that "Honeymooners" segment when Ralph just can't seem to perfect that apology to Alice without going into a diatribe about Her mom the "Blabber mouth"?
/just saying

535 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:18:13pm

re: #530 Geepers

Intrepid (#445),

In fact, none of those things are true of the Republican Party.

This guy's ain't a Conservative, he sounds suspiciously like a typical whiny Liberal.

Sounds a whole lot more like a moby.

536 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:18:16pm

re: #471 MandyManners

That is a MUNICIPAL issue.

No, it wasn't the municipality that pushed the gay dudes onto the streets and told them to have sex.

537 Silhouette  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:18:16pm

I think there is much disagreement as to who is pushing whom out of the Big Tent.

I am hearing some people saying that they are being pushed out when what they describe is that they will leave unless the others are pushed out (or silenced). Both ways.

538 experiencedtraveller  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:18:21pm

re: #511 MandyManners

A-HA!

If you have a cure for 'DC Disease' Mandy I am all ears!

/good night...have fun.

539 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:18:22pm
540 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:18:36pm

re: #514 Quilly Mammoth

So you are saying that the Republicans should chuck 30-40% of their base? That doesn't make sense.

You're right- it doesn't make sense. Let's ditch the fisc-cons instead and see what happens!

Oh, wait.

541 Mich-again  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:18:44pm

re: #488 guitarguy

Anyone know what Thomas Jefferson's views on partial-birth abortion were?

Here is a window into what Jefferson might have thought...

"State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:257, Papers 12:15
542 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:18:51pm

bbiab

543 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:18:59pm

re: #528 Tigger2005

What people are saying is that these reasons are not good enough.


What you keep missing is that you aren't in charge of which reasons are good enough. You are losing votes, you can claim that the reasons aren't good enough but those votes are still lost no matter how much you protest.

544 The Shadow Do  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:19:02pm

I have this theory about why Republicans keep losing elections...

They keep running crappy candidates.

545 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:19:17pm

re: #527 cincinnati_kid37

OK, I'm leaving now. I believe I've answered everyone. If you think me a troll, delete me. Like I give a damn.

You're a Daisy if ya do. :)

In potentially "going", let me just say that Society has a lot of problems, and it isn't going to help anyone to elevate any group above any other. ANd to the point of this post:
- The GOP didn't lose my vote.
- The GOP didn't impress me that they want to force religion on anyone
- The Media and some homosexual friends of mine DO impress me that they believe the GOP is God, Guns, and Gays, which I believe is an illustion totally perpetrated by the MSM who constantly mis-represent the concept of Conservative, which to me simply means 'Supportive of the Constitution", and in favor of small government, Cheaper government and More freedom.

Outside of this Homo-sex yourselves to oblivion for all I care, just don't ask from more from society than what I am afforded as a Hetro, good looking White guy.

Oh good, I was wondering when he was going to fall on the "I have gay friends" hook. Convinced me, you did!

546 Randall Gross  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:19:32pm

re: #527 cincinnati_kid37

... and why do you smell like a vdare kinda "white guy" to me?

547 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:19:42pm

re: #369 Cobber1

This is a sad day for me. As an almost daily visitor this will be may last visit to this great blog.

Unfortunately I no longer feel welcome here. My belief in the value of all life (even the un-born), my belief in a purposeful life (not a cosmic accident), and my belief in the Bible based structure of the US government, are now regularily attacked here. I can tell when I am no longer welcome.

I know I will be missed little, and most will say good riddance but I wanted to say, thanks for the ride. This really is a great blog. All the best.

This is a blog where you can have differing opinions and post them. It's not an echo chamber. If you want an echo chamber where all the posts agree with you, or if you can't stand the heat of an argument or lively discussion, then this is not the place for you.

I have been posting here for a long time. I don't agree with everything posted here - that would be impossible, as we have differing opinions here. I do know people who do agree pretty much with everything in this article, and they certainly should speak up - so should you and others who have a different opinion.

The important thing is to discuss issues. The same thing is happening all over the country - these are important issues. That is what democracy is all about.

548 MrSnuggles  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:19:52pm

I do not get it, the Republicans lost because of FISCAL ISSUES yet you people want to make concessions on the issues of abortion and gay rights when THEY WERE NOT EVEN ON THE TABLE during the election? These are two issues that will transform our nation almost as much as a socially liberal economic policy.

549 Dasher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:19:54pm

re: #544 The Shadow Do

I have this theory about why Republicans keep losing elections...

They keep running crappy candidates.

Bingo

550 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:19:56pm

re: #526 Intrepid

Am so sorry Intrepid..Bless you for being there for her.

551 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:20:02pm

re: #526 Intrepid

my heart goes out to you-went thru it with my mom- she always insisted we take her home(we had sold her home several yrs before she passed)it is a horrible disease--prayers to her and you and yours

552 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:20:05pm

Look, people, this is not that hard. When you join the GOP you get mailings. Most of the time, yes, they want money. BUT, there is a very important mailing where you, yes, you, get to VOTE on the platform of the party.

Now, I vote for those platform planks, and I know a lot of you did also.

But, if you are not in the party, you don't get to vote on the platform.

If you did not vote for the platform, don't bitch about it. If you don't like it, register and try to change it.

Or do like this writer did and go be a Nanny State Democrat.

553 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:20:25pm

re: #525 Walter L. Newton

I want to make sure EVERYONE see this. I apologize for my "pounding bible" remark. It was over the top.

(But no, kid37, I am not apologizing to you for my other remarks. You come across as a bigoted homophobe, plain and simple. Go cry about the gays over on WorldNutDaily)

Incorrect. And no I am not asking for an apology. I have no problem with people expressing their thoughts.

554 Silhouette  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:20:41pm

re: #517 Osama Bin Asshat

0.000000001% of rapes end up in conception, but the media ran with it and Palin looked like an extremist. Can't win if the media can control the issues.

And NO concession will win the media's fair treatment.

555 bosforus  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:20:43pm

re: #526 Intrepid

I'm so sorry to hear. I hope she is well taken care of.

556 Formercorpsman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:20:46pm

I am looking for conversation on this.

Anyone?

Seriously?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

557 jcbunga  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:20:59pm

re: #536 cincinnati_kid37

No, it wasn't the municipality that pushed the gay dudes onto the streets and told them to have sex.

Admit it.

You're Cartman.

558 Hucbald  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:21:04pm

Sounds like the scumbag's inner leftard is finally free to me. Good riddance. *shrug*

92% of Americans believe in God and the electorate is and always has been right of center on social issues, with more than just slight religious overtones. If the Republicans want to alienate religious social conservatives, well, they can enjoy several more decades of exile. This 'tard is just another religiophobe. Fuck 'im.

Oh, and abortion is murder. That's why social conservatives find it abhorrent: Abortion IS abhorrent. So is destroying human embryos in the name of science (Not to mention it is increasingly not necessary, and so is becoming bad science as well).

I'm a small-l libertarian - let gays be gays, let heads be heads, get Uncle Sam out of our lives, yadda, yadda, yadda; blah, blah, blah - but I'm not an idiot. Religious social conservatives find, when I talk with them, that they have more in common with libertarians than they don't (I attend a conservative LCMS Lutheran Church, and I've even had our resident, tough, grizzled, retired cop agree with me more than half of the time). That's the tactic to take: Keep the reasonable religious social conservatives, attract reasonable small-l libertarians, and make them understand that smaller, less intrusive government is best for us all.

Don't forget: I used to be a raging leftard!

This moron's approach is EXACTLY the wrong way to proceed.

He needs a STFU message in the worst possible way, as do others of his ilk.

/rant

559 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:21:27pm

re: #526 Intrepid

Declining, sadly. But it is the natural course of the disease. I met with a representative of a non-profit group the other day who is going to approve my application for financial assistance for Mom to go to adult day care two days a week. That will be a big help!

Mom has gone to the Senior Citizens' Center for years, but when she started wandering, they told me that she had to move to the Adult Day Care area. But it costs as much as 20 dollars a day! Mom can't afford that.

So it's great that this non-profit is going to help us - and Mom gets to go to the Senior Center/Day Care, and I get a break!

Poor Mom - she keeps fretting about my Dad and why he hasn't come home from work yet. She scours phone books looking for his work phone number, worrying herself to pieces. I can't lie to her - she doesn't believe me if I do - so I have to keep telling her that Pop died almost 8 years ago. When she scoffs, I give her his Guest Book from the funeral home. She settles down then.

Tears me up, I tell ya.

I was hoping you'd reply before I left tonight . . . , tears me up to read your words.
That adult day care should be available without you having to obtain 'approval' . . . , check that out by reading through you mom's Medicare booklet
SUGGESTION:
music . . . . . , songs from back in her 'hay' day are a great soother!

560 MrSnuggles  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:21:38pm

re: #516 Wishing

To be quite honest, snug, that is precisely the attitude we DONT need. This is whiny selfish 6 year old's behavior!
And, furrther, I am not interested in whiny votes: if we win, there is 4 years of listening to you snivelers, if we lose, ther is no end to the grief.
Grow up.

The whiners are the people blaming folks like me that are against abortion and gay rights. If these people think this party will get anywhere without us, they are sorely mistaken, that's all.

561 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:21:39pm

re: #519 MandyManners

I'm talking about the convential wisdom view of the two extremes. And, I mean EXTREMES.

Liberation theology v. Christian Identity.

I know that's what you think the extremes are.

Think about this though...how many Christians have left this site? Not because they believe in "new earth creationism" but because they believe that God created the universe, and therefore was responsible for creating life...and they were slammed by many members of this site. Those people are considered "radical" by many here. They're considered "creationists" Oh my!

And in all reality, they should all be residing under the same big tent...fighting the crazy Leftists!

562 Jimmah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:21:58pm

re: #529 gmsc

My mom's favorite song used to be "Reverend Blue Jeans". It was years before she found out it was "Forever in Blue Jeans"!

Hah - nice. Would make a scary nic for LGF too.

About 'Return December' - I'm just remembering that at the time it made perfect sense to me that a grown man should be singing about wanting December (with christmas etc) to 'return'.

563 FrogMarch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:22:07pm

re: #532 jaunte

Yes. First!

564 Salem  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:22:07pm

My problem with McCain, personally, wasn't that he wasn't a socon. Mostly, it was seeing his name on the amnesty bill, and if that wasn't bad enough, seeing him dismiss the outcry of 80% of the population. And then seeing him rewarded with the nomination when he should have been fired. And the fact that he's a career Senate gang-of-14 jerk-off doesn't help any. Securing the nations borders is not a religious issue.

565 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:22:18pm

re: #382 ornery elephant

That's a complete crock, medaura - you know full well that it was embryonic stem cell research. And besides, where exactly is the headquarters of this "Religious Right" you speak of? You've been watching a bit too much of Chris Matthews.

Good point. And has anyone mentioned that nonembyonic stem cell research has moved quickly, making embryonic stem cell research fast approaching passe?

566 Fried Spam  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:22:20pm

re: #451 Haverwilde

Are you stark raving mad?

Possibly. ;> But what Bush 2 has done by the $3 trillion bailout is far closer to outright socialism than what I have been fearing Obama would do.

If it was under Clinton's watch that these policies came into being, then you must remember that the Republican congress let him get away with it. Clinton did manage to come close to balancing the budget, something no one else has managed to do in far too long.

Just so you know I'm not a raging liberal or even a Democrat, I voted for Bush 2 twice, and voted for McCain. Bluntly, I was feeling nauseous when I voted for McCain. Palin helped assuage that somewhat, but she was the only conservative among the 4.

567 Basho  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:22:22pm

re: #553 cincinnati_kid37

Incorrect. And no I am not asking for an apology. I have no problem with people expressing their thoughts.

He wasn't apologizing to you, idiot.

568 Silhouette  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:22:36pm

re: #530 Geepers

In fact, none of those things are true of the Republican Party.

Just quoting you because it needs to be said again.

569 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:22:48pm

re: #564 Salem

My problem with McCain, personally, wasn't that he wasn't a socon. Mostly, it was seeing his name on the amnesty bill, and if that wasn't bad enough, seeing him dismiss the outcry of 80% of the population. And then seeing him rewarded with the nomination when he should have been fired. And the fact that he's a career Senate gang-of-14 jerk-off doesn't help any. Securing the nations borders is not a religious issue.

It is for Michelle Malkin!

570 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:23:00pm

re: #531 Dasher

One election where 1/2 the electorate were duped does not make religion the problem.

When did I say that religion was the "problem"?

571 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:23:11pm
572 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:23:13pm

re: #541 Mich-again

Here is a window into what Jefferson might have thought...

"State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:257, Papers 12:15

But I keep hearing that quotes from Jefferson's papers don't count, especially when you bring up "separation of church and state" (1809, Letter to Danbury Baptists).

573 Caliredst8r  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:23:15pm

re: #431 DesertSagere: #466 jcbunga

Didn't our Founding Fathers hold church services in the Capital? Or one of the Governments office buildings? Shoot, I remember reading that somewhere and can't remember where.

574 Max Darkside  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:23:17pm

OT... going back in the time machine...

May 17, 2008; Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said yesterday that financial markets have stabilized since March, when the collapse of investment house Bear Stearns roiled Wall Street, and said he expects economic growth to rebound by the end of the year.

Now: November 13, 2008; Paulson says banking system has been 'stabilized'.

bwahahaha... Based on his track record we can sure take those words to the bank, eh? Trying to convince us that Rome isn't burning, eh Nero?

575 CharlieBravo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:23:26pm

re: #544 The Shadow Do

I have this theory about why Republicans keep losing elections...

They keep running crappy candidates.

Talk about cutting to the chase...

576 MrSnuggles  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:23:32pm

re: #560 MrSnuggles

Replying to myself here, but if anything, the republicans should be able to skim off minority voters that are strongly religious on the basis of abortion and gay rights. Hispanics and blacks are both in that category.

577 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:23:37pm

re: #308 Killgore Trout

The point is not to exclude them or drive them out of the party. They just need to stop demanding their religious moral sensibilities be the focus of the party. Instead we can all agree of personal liberty, small government and fiscal responsibility.

AMEN

578 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:23:59pm

re: #526 Intrepid

Did you see my comment above. If you are still here, I have a question.

Will this non-profit you mention take donations to them earmarked for your mom? Do you know? If they will, maybe you could post the info here and we can work up some 20 dollar donations to help here through a few months or so.

579 Mich-again  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:24:13pm

re: #525 Walter L. Newton

I want to make sure EVERYONE see this. I apologize for my "pounding bible" remark. It was over the top.

Get your slur straight. The word is thumping, not pounding.

580 lostlakehiker  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:24:22pm

There are any number of good secular reasons to ban gay marriage. For starters, it's a tax break intended to help people form families and raise their biological children. It wasn't meant to be a tax dodge or an inheritance tax workaround. It wasn't intended to help Butch Cassidy avoid testifying against the Sundance Kid.

(Nobody will be able to check if the couple getting hitched are partners in bed, or just partners in crime.)

Just because somebody who doesn't need it and has no use for it except fancier vacations wants a tax break, is no reason they should have it.

For another, gay marriage, if legalized, opens the door to polygamy. Leaving aside the question of sharia law, won't that exacerbate the winner-take-all aspects of today's economy?

For a third, gay marriage carries with it the prospect of forcing legislatures into rescinding most of the traditional rights of parents. These rights have been found a workable mix between leaving things to the parents, and having the state watch out for abuse. But abuse is much more common when the legal parents are not the biological parents. This happens already in heterosexual marriages; the legends about the wicked stepmother are founded in harsh experience.

(You good step-parents out there, please read carefully. I DID NOT SAY that step parents were all bad, or mostly bad. What I said is that bad ones aren't as much of a rarity as with biological parents.)

With heterosexual second marriages, there is at least this: children of the second marriage will tend to unite the couple and give each parent a reason founded in biology to be good to the other spouse's children.

With gay marriage, that just can't happen. Deep biological human tendencies would push the couple in all the wrong directions. Now humans are not slaves to these tendencies, and there would be more good gay parents than bad. But statistically, the bad outcomes would be far too common.

The statistics of "marriage" would go downhill, and the law would react by sharply limiting the role of parents in raising children. Too many bad marriages out there, you see.

581 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:24:28pm

re: #551 mikeymom

my heart goes out to you-went thru it with my mom- she always insisted we take her home(we had sold her home several yrs before she passed)it is a horrible disease--prayers to her and you and yours

SIGH . . . , you were a loving child to your mom - its wonderful to be around people who really care for their loved ones!

582 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:24:38pm

re: #544 The Shadow Do

I have this theory about why Republicans keep losing elections...

They keep running crappy candidates.

The simple fact of an 8-year incumbency plus the economy tanking are quite enough to account for a Dem victory, particularly one which was far short of a landslide. Don't know how productive the blame game can really be.

583 186kps  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:24:40pm

The article is a crock, built on a literary foundation of sand.
LIFE, LIBERTY and th Pursuit of Happiness without LIFE there can be no Liberty and no Happiness.

The whole I voted for Obama because "I'm frustrated" is a joke.

584 dormain  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:24:42pm

This doctor is clued out. There is no guarantee of separation from religion and in fact if he were to bother to read the constitution it states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So clearly while Congress can pass no law establishing a federal church such as The Church of England, nor can it prohibit THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF and that means Christians are free to be politically active and agitate to have their candidates and values reflected in parties and party platforms and even law IF they can muster majority support. Atheists have the same right to agitate their way. It's called democracy. I wonder what sort of doctor this man is ...

585 Osama Bin Asshat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:24:46pm

re: #554 Silhouette

And NO concession will win the media's fair treatment.

That's why the Repubs have a very uphill battle...they need a Reagan who can communicate these issues diplomatically while at the same time shouting down the media's misinformation. McCain was a boob half the time in the debates, very slow on his feet, appeared to lack confidence...the complete opposite of Obama.

586 tripletdad  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:24:52pm

I though the RR was rather quiet this election. No Jerry Falwell or religious group protests, hunger strikes or marches. (granted I avoided as much of the news as possible because of the incessant BHO cheerleading). They will always want a voice in the party, but again, shutting them up entirely is unrealistic and a little heavy handed.

587 Dasher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:24:59pm

McCain could have won the election if he had voted NAY on the $700 billion bailout. Unfortunately he was not the maverick right when he should have been.

588 Klaatu  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:25:09pm
I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms

So he voted for candidates expressly in favor of larger government, redistributing wealth, cutting the defense budget, and gun control? All because he thinks the people should have no say in whether unborn babies have a right to life and the federal government should be in the business of funding their destruction?

589 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:25:32pm

I'm late in this thread and I just read the good doctors reasons for leaving. I did not hear one mention of why he voted for the dems though. If he was once a Republican, does he think the Democrats will handle his belief system any better? I am bothered by the "my way or the highway" attitude of some of the people in my party, but I know one thing for certain - the Democrats offer nothing that come close to my beliefs many areas.

590 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:26:00pm

re: #579 Mich-again

Get your slur straight. The word is thumping, not pounding.

Sorry (again).

591 jaunte  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:26:15pm

re: #580 lostlakehiker

"...bad ones aren't as much of a rarity as with biological parents."

Some data on that claim would be good.

592 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:26:21pm

re: #545 Walter L. Newton

Oh good, I was wondering when he was going to fall on the "I have gay friends" hook. Convinced me, you did!

When you run out of arguments, simply call the person you attacked a liar.

You'll be seeing a lot more of that over the next 4 years !

593 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:26:27pm

re: #589 Desert Dog

I'm late in this thread and I just read the good doctors reasons for leaving. I did not hear one mention of why he voted for the dems though. If he was once a Republican, does he think the Democrats will handle his belief system any better? I am bothered by the "my way or the highway" attitude of some of the people in my party, but I know one thing for certain - the Democrats offer nothing that come close to my beliefs many areas.

Where does he say he voted for a Dem?

594 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:26:27pm

re: #587 Dasher

McCain could have won the election if he had voted NAY on the $700 billion bailout. Unfortunately he was not the maverick right when he should have been.

That was the deciding factor for the Catholic fisc-con I know. McCain backed the bailout, he said "no Mac".

595 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:26:48pm

re: #73 zombie

Help?

I've just made this post at zombietime, moments ago.

But I have not yet publicized it. Before I do so, I request:

Do you have any suggestions/ideas/comments for this piece before I "go public" with it?

Is it worth pursuing? Any and all constructive criticism would be much appreciated. Post it here! Thanks.


...etc.

Easy to remember. . . That is my birthday, and the 45 anniversary of JFK's death. . .

596 CharlieBravo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:26:57pm

re: #556 Formercorpsman

I am looking for conversation on this.

Anyone?

Seriously?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I think you covered everything. We'll soon have socialized medicine, it will be paid for with tax money and it will include abortion on demand. The election is over.

597 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:27:07pm

re: #95 winston06

That argument held water until the Prescription Drug Act...

598 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:27:22pm

re: #567 Basho

He wasn't apologizing to you, idiot.

Yea, I know that Bozo ! ;-)

599 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:28:02pm

The Republican will keep on losing votes until they put up candidates that are more than willing to fight to win and treat their opponents as opponents instead of colleagues.

600 Randall Gross  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:28:14pm

re: #586 tripletdad

I though the RR was rather quiet this election. No Jerry Falwell or religious group protests, hunger strikes or marches. (granted I avoided as much of the news as possible because of the incessant BHO cheerleading). They will always want a voice in the party, but again, shutting them up entirely is unrealistic and a little heavy handed.

Expelled?

601 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:28:14pm

re: #578 Walter L. Newton

walter--as sad as intrepids story is, there are many lgf'ers here in similar straits. maybe a donation to united way, alzheimers assoc,american heart, diabeties assoc ,amer cancer etc would help many?

602 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:28:22pm

re: #592 cincinnati_kid37

When you run out of arguments, simply call the person you attacked a liar.

You'll be seeing a lot more of that over the next 4 years !

You're homophobic. I don't like you.

603 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:28:25pm

re: #589 Desert Dog

I'm late in this thread and I just read the good doctors reasons for leaving. I did not hear one mention of why he voted for the dems though. If he was once a Republican, does he think the Democrats will handle his belief system any better? I am bothered by the "my way or the highway" attitude of some of the people in my party, but I know one thing for certain - the Democrats offer nothing that come close to my beliefs many areas.

Yeah, but you're one of those "Desert" people...what do you know?

:')

604 sandspur  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:28:25pm

re: #118 FightingBack

The Good Doctor is a socialist. He's tired of the rat race and would like a little snooze under the government umbrella.

I'm guessing he's not a surgeon.

I believe he is a radiologist.

605 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:28:37pm

re: #371 Sharmuta

Fisc-cons are pissed and not voting republican. What are we going to do about it?

SCOTT RASMUSSEN --
Barack Obama won the White House by campaigning against an unpopular incumbent in a time of economic anxiety and lingering foreign policy concerns. He offered voters an upbeat message, praised the nation as a land of opportunity, promised tax cuts to just about everyone, and overcame doubts about his experience with a strong performance in the presidential debates.

Does this sound familiar? It should. Mr. Obama followed the approach that worked for Ronald Reagan. His victory confirmed that voters still embrace the guiding beliefs of the Reagan era.

606 armaros  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:28:53pm

What utter self gratifying rubbish.

So let me get this.
In order to avoid the religious right, this voter chooses a campaign aligned with the religious Left, Wright, Farrakhan Pfleger and company. A campaign promising income re-distribution and a civilian activist corps headed by a former self proclaimed socialist agitator.
Then he evokes Gay Marriage, which has been banned mainly by votes of black and Hispanic Obama voters.

I happen to be pro-choice, as they call it, and do not attend religious service nor do I really care about Gay marriage.
I can easily and eagerly agree with Sarah Palin that we should have LESS abortions and that most reasonable people can work together toward that aim.
I happen to think that outlawing it would not achieve that end but drive it under ground like Coke, Prostitution and other "sins". I am also sure that most "Pro Life" Americans would also agree with that thus making the direct connection between pro life and wanting to ban abortions a tenuous one at best.

It is also worth noting that in the US, over 33% of aborted babies are black while blacks make up at the most 12% of the population.
Funny how no race hustling loudmouth has ever raised this scary statistic.
Especially Obama who would allow abortions in the 3rd trimester when arguably we re dealing with more than just blobs of cells.

My position on Gay marriage is that couples should get equal rights in hospital visits, tax treatment etc and if there are clergy men/women or ship captains who would be willing to marry them that is their business. Congratulations to them. Congratulations to divorce lawyers also. This will surely help them most.

But to re-define marriage as also men/men, women/women, tranny/tranny is not necessary unless offending traditional people is the real objective.

This is what backfired in California especially and resulted sadly in the ban vote.
I am also sure that the school teacher who took her grade school pupils to witness her lesbian wedding can take credit for this backlash.

Good work lady, now count your blessings, you arrogant, selfish, narcissistic idiot!

McCain was the most liberal of republicans Dr Hshieh could have had among all his past GOP choices. More liberal than Bush, or H. Bush.

Now, I guess based on the single issue of abortion he is willing to throw away all his principles so that he can serve his agenda which I see to be providing abortions.

" Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine" just sound like some abortion promo to me...I could be wrong if so I strand corrected.

A.

607 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:28:56pm

okay, this time I'm really signing off . . . nighty, night all

608 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:29:11pm

re: #560 MrSnuggles

The whiners are the people blaming folks like me that are against abortion and gay rights. If these people think this party will get anywhere without us, they are sorely mistaken, that's all.

Does the issue of abortion rights belong on the national party level tho? Palin managed to get elected and actually get conservative stuff done without once raising the issue of abortion rights etc. Cant we do the same on the national level? Must these two issues be in every public debate about POLITICS?

609 bosforus  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:29:55pm

re: #580 lostlakehiker


For another, gay marriage, if legalized, opens the door to polygamy.

Opens the door? Heck, it practically invites polygamy to a backyard BBQ!

610 Dasher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:30:25pm

re: #597 Dan G.

That argument held water until the Prescription Drug Act...

Has any one done a 'study' (hate that word) ok make that an analysis of whether the Medicare part D (prescription drug act), is a net loser or winner. Many drugs eliminate the need for costly surgeries. It is quite possible that prescription drugs are a cost winner and not a cost loser.

611 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:30:41pm

re: #601 mikeymom

walter--as sad as intrepids story is, there are many lgf'ers here in similar straits. maybe a donation to united way, alzheimers assoc,american heart, diabeties assoc ,amer cancer etc would help many?

Great reminder! Yes, those organizations, generally, do have monies earmarked for such needs as mentioned by intrepid!

612 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:30:44pm
613 Mich-again  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:30:51pm

re: #572 gmsc

But I keep hearing that quotes from Jefferson's papers don't count, especially when you bring up "separation of church and state" (1809, Letter to Danbury Baptists).

Not sure what you mean there. Jefferson definitely wanted a wall of separation between Church and State. That is not to be confused with a wall of separation between Morality and State. TJ had a lot to say about inalienable rights and natural law but he was not a Christian. I believe he described his own views as epicurean. He also made it clear Religion should be a private matter.

614 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:31:07pm

re: #609 bosforus

Opens the door? Heck, it practically invites polygamy to a backyard BBQ!

Are polygamists red meat or chicken kinda people? Just curious if i ever get invited?

615 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:31:16pm

re: #308 Killgore Trout

The point is not to exclude them or drive them out of the party. They just need to stop demanding their religious moral sensibilities be the focus of the party. Instead we can all agree of personal liberty, small government and fiscal responsibility.

Please show me where John McCain did or said that.

616 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:31:23pm

re: #593 Walter L. Newton

So, he voted straight Libertarian then? Freedom Party? Green?

617 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:31:24pm

re: #604 sandspur

I believe he is a radiologist.

nah, I'm thinking podiatrist

618 HornetDriver  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:31:27pm

How About Some Philosophical Truth From the Doctor

A quick review of Dr. Hsieh's complete column, as well as his many previous writings leads one to conclude that although he may be a "free market capitalist" (at least in terms of the Health Care System), he must have been VERY uncomfortable voting Republican for so VERY long.

His views trend 100% secular and 100% pro-choice. THAT's his beef with the so-called "Religious Right," and by extension the whole Republican Party.

That's his right of course, but to throw in all the other "smokescreen" failings of the republicans when HE was certainly never going to vote for them anyway is just a bit disingenuous, doncha' think?

619 Formercorpsman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:31:28pm

re: #596 CharlieBravo

Thank you for the courtesy.

As a live and let live soccon type, I am willing to have this discussion.

I just see it as a huge potential contradiction when making the arguments for each case.

I think that is a legitimate comparison to point out.

620 jaunte  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:31:37pm

re: #614 Nevergiveup

Mixed grill.

621 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:31:47pm

re: #601 mikeymom

walter--as sad as intrepids story is, there are many lgf'ers here in similar straits. maybe a donation to united way, alzheimers assoc,american heart, diabeties assoc ,amer cancer etc would help many?

I was only asking him because of the reason you mention above. I don't have a lot of money, so I would rather be able to target my money to someone to help them out.

And yes, those organizations are good, but it sounded like he needed some help ASAP.

622 Opinionated  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:31:50pm

re: #586 tripletdad

I though the RR was rather quiet this election.

You were not paying attention. Neither early in the process not when they threatened McCain with who he can and can not pick as a running mate.

And at the risk of getting multiple down dinged again by those who see Palin as Reagan reincarnated, several possible much better VP picks may have put enough States in play that the outcome could have been different.

623 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:32:01pm

re: #15 Charles

I don't see this as an excuse for not voting -- I see it as a reason why he voted for the Democrats. We all have our own personal tipping points.

McCain knew he would probably lose this guy's vote and the votes of others like him when he picked Sarah Palin.
It was a political choice by McCain, and we really cannnot be sure whether he chose poorly because we cannot quantify the net difference had he chosen Romney.
One thing though is certain - if the GOP decides not to move to the center on the religious and social issues, then they are going to need a candidate in 2012 whose personal image is much more attractive than McCain's was.
And they should look into getting ahold of some good strong KoolAid too!

624 Randall Gross  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:32:03pm

This really needs discussion folks. It's not about shoving social conservatives out the door. It is about what they can do to control the extremists on their side more. Discovery Institute would be a good start. The people who put prop 8 on the ballot drew out a larger hispanic and black vote in California while the ammendment passed did anyone think to check the Republican seats that were lost there? Prop 8 was highly counterproductive.

625 bosforus  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:32:06pm

re: #614 Nevergiveup

Are polygamists red meat or chicken kinda people? Just curious if i ever get invited?

All I know is there better be a lot of whatever they prefer.

626 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:32:07pm

Now I know Hsieh's agenda. He and his wife are dedicated Randists. Which explains why he would abandon every other principle just to attack religion.

As Sea Wasp once said "You can not truly appreciate Atlas Shrugged until you have read it in the Original Klingon".

627 186kps  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:32:07pm

The left is pushing a feel good populist agenda, it will be hard to fight against that but we will prevail.

628 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:32:12pm

re: #604 sandspur

I believe he is a radiologist.

Give me an internist any day of the week. A radiologist told me to come back in six months. My internist called me at home, in the evening, to tell me to come in to see his partner, who recommended an immediate biopsy. I had cancer, so my internist saved my life with that little phone call. I always like to mention that my internist is a Jew - his partner, who is a surgeon, a Muslim.

629 Mich-again  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:32:18pm

re: #590 Walter L. Newton

You don't have to apologize to me Walter, I wasn't offended in the least. Life is too short to worry about trifles.

630 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:32:20pm
I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.

I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004.

/who does he think was embracing the Religious Right in 1996, 2000, and 2004?

631 theparson  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:32:41pm

Republican Party? Is that still around?

632 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:32:42pm

re: #620 jaunte

omg too funny

633 sleepyone  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:32:43pm

re: #590 Walter L. Newton

Sorry (again).

Walter, you can be a real ball of fire and I agree with about 60% of what you say but your comments are indeed a joy to read. You are indeed a critical thinker in my humble opinion.

634 Tigger2005  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:32:54pm

re: #543 Killgore Trout

What you keep missing is that you aren't in charge of which reasons are good enough. You are losing votes, you can claim that the reasons aren't good enough but those votes are still lost no matter how much you protest.

I am not missing this. You just keep on believing this, no matter how many posts I've put up addressing this issue. You're still not getting what I'm saying. I'm not saying we should ignore these reasons. I am saying they were not worth risking the continued existence of this nation as anything resembling the United States of America over, and people who couldn't figure out THAT need to learn a few things themselves.

635 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:33:00pm

re: #602 Cattt

You're homophobic. I don't like you.

No I'm not. I'm a "More for this group-a-phobic". Why does anyone want more attention that anyone else? No one ever gave me a dime growing up, nor did I ask.

636 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:33:45pm

re: #566 Fried Spam

Sorry if I was a little over the top. I personally believe that Clinton and Bush 1 and Bush 2 (until last month) are the recipients of the Reagan boom. But given the current state of the depressed economy (and the mention of Clinton positively) I slipped a mental cog for awhile.

It way past time for us to start being more fiscally responsible. This recession/depression we are in, and the massive governmental spending effort to halt it, are going to break the back of America for some years to come.

637 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:33:51pm

re: #616 Desert Dog

So, he voted straight Libertarian then? Freedom Party? Green?

Point is, he didn't say, you can't say. You said it like it was fact. I know a lot of Republicans that were unhappy with the candidate and the party and they voted for Barr.

638 Silhouette  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:34:21pm

re: #617 outsidephilly

nah, I'm thinking podiatrist

Uh oh. I'm encouraging the Juniors to grow up to be doctors, like any good mother should.

But being aware of the divorce/suicide rates for doctors, I'm trying to steer them toward relatively low stress disciplines where they are home at night.

I guessed podiatry and dermatology.

639 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:34:49pm

re: #118 FightingBack

You'll have a hard time reconciling that statement with his other political work... We Stand FIRM

640 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:35:07pm

re: #635 cincinnati_kid37

No I'm not. I'm a "More for this group-a-phobic". Why does anyone want more attention that anyone else? No one ever gave me a dime growing up, nor did I ask.

Not only are you homophobic - you're in denial.

641 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:35:10pm

re: #631 theparson

Republican Party? Is that still around?

No.

642 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:35:37pm

re: #631 theparson

Republican Party? Is that still around?

Sure, we're basically the ones in the Military.

643 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:35:40pm

re: #640 Cattt

Not only are you homophobic - you're in denial.

It's your story, tell it any way you want.

644 jpd158  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:35:46pm

Full disclosure: I read only the abstract of the Tsieh article that Charles posted on the front of LGF. Why? Because I was so pissed off after reading it that I couldn't bring myself to "read the whole thing" as I normally do.

You mean to tell me that the reason the Republicans lost was due to an anti abortion stand? Because they are against gay marriage? Embryonic stem cell research? Because they've somehow become hooked up with this amorphous "Religious Right"? Come on! I found Tsieh comments to be, to quote Gen. Shwarzkoph, bovine scatology.

He mentions the Founding Fathers. Did not the Founding Fathers tell us that the government should guarantee us the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? What would Hamilton say about destroying life before it ever had a chance to start? And another poster had it right. Reagan: no change in Roe v. Wade. Bush I: No change in Roe v. Wade. Bush II: no change in Roe v. Wade. So where's the problem again?

What about gay marriage? Did it occur to Tsieh that in every state where the question has been put on the ballot, Gay Marriage has been resoundingly defeated? Is it the GOP that is out of step with the general population?

Maybe that's why with respect to two of the issues Tsieh mentions (Gay Marriage and Abortion), the left went to the courts to get its way. They do this because they try to get in the courts what they can't get at the ballot box. If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, all that would do would turn the issue back to the states. In other words, the individual states would be allowed to legislate against it, if they so chose. Do you really think in this day and age that all those blue states are going to outlaw abortion? And gay marriage? In the only state where full fledged gay marriage is "legal" (my home state of Massachusetts), it was decided by four people on the Supreme Judicial Court. When the people tried to overturn it, the Mass legislature manipulated the process to see to it that the issue never got on the ballot.

That's what I don't understand about these people. If you are so sure that the American people want gay marriage and abortion then put it to a goddam vote and be done with it. But the lefties won't because they know they'll lose.
The point is, public policy, as Tsieh thinks it is, is not based on hard right religious doctrines. If it were, then we'd all have to wear yarmulkes on the appropriate dates, all men would have to grow beards, women would be in burqas, and everybody would have to go to Confession when the government said so.

The problem with Republicans is not that they are too conservative. It's that many of them are too liberal. That's the reason the term RINO came into being - because many of them are Republicans in Name Only.

I get the feeling that this guy Tsieh is like one of those phantom callers into radio talk shows... you know the ones who start off with the old, "You know, I've been voting Republican all my life, but in this case I have to go with the Democrat..." and then proceeds to savage the Republican candidate. As soon as you hear that you know you've come across some more "bovine scatology."

645 outsidephilly  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:35:49pm

re: #638 Silhouette

Uh oh. I'm encouraging the Juniors to grow up to be doctors, like any good mother should.

But being aware of the divorce/suicide rates for doctors, I'm trying to steer them toward relatively low stress disciplines where they are home at night.

I guessed podiatry and dermatology.

Cardiology has GREAT rewards!
gotta go . . . , I need my beauty sleep!
///

646 Randall Gross  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:35:58pm

re: #626 Quilly Mammoth

Now I know Hsieh's agenda. He and his wife are dedicated Randists. Which explains why he would abandon every other principle just to attack religion.

As Sea Wasp once said "You can not truly appreciate Atlas Shrugged until you have read it in the Original Klingon".

Maybe so, and if we had the libertarians who voted for Reagan back when he ran we wouldn't have lost this election. We can't keep shrinking the party by letting the more hysterical tiny majority of the social conservatives become our poster children.

647 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:36:12pm

re: #313 Sharmuta

Hon- that's my point. Republicans can't win without the fisc-cons. We stay home, flip sides, vote 3rd party- the GOP loses.

This is a coalition- we need to find some understanding as a party and I think the doctor hit the nail on the head with this:

Exactly right, Doc.

But wasn't that the excuse the man in the article claimed? He was anti-SoCon, so he voted for Obama?

He's a bit off his rocker if he thinks that he is in the majority, then.

648 The Shadow Do  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:36:17pm

re: #582 Moe Katz

The simple fact of an 8-year incumbency plus the economy tanking are quite enough to account for a Dem victory, particularly one which was far short of a landslide. Don't know how productive the blame game can really be.

The whole finger pointing thing right now is completely unproductive and will probably lead to some goofy overreactions of one sort or another and yet another round of election losses.

Looking around for an energizing, authoritative, and reasonable voice for the party and just am not seeing one. All this Jindal etc talk is just goofy - conservative looking for their very own Messiah or some such. Just goofy. It is going to be a long climb back.

649 Jimmah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:36:17pm

The decay of 'personal morality' can be traced all the way back to - yes - you've guessed it - Abraham Lincoln.

/

650 Cicero05  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:36:34pm

Oh no, another "lifelong conservative" who's voted for Obama, a politician who represents the polar opposite of everything that conservatism means. Sure, and I'm a lifelong Catholic who's been worshipping Satan lately because I don't agree with the Pope's stand on the finer points of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

As a very secular conservative, I don't agree with the emphasis that Republicans place on certain social issues, and I believe that abortion is a dead-end fight. Even so, I not only voted for McCain, I also contributed money because as a conservative, the idea of an Obama presidency scares the hell out of me. I submit that such is the rational reaction of a secular conservative to the presidential choince in 2008. Casting one's vote for the enemy is not rational.

There is a legitimate argument to be made that social issue positions result in a net loss of Republican voters. But people like Dr. Tsieh who claim to be "lifelong conservatives" turned apostates are either delusional or bald-faced liars. (Several bogus "lifelong-conservatives-turned-Obama-supporters" were exposed as frauds during the campaign.) Either way, their prescriptions for Republican policy should be ignored in the debate.

651 CharlieBravo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:36:35pm

re: #587 Dasher

McCain could have won the election if he had voted NAY on the $700 billion bailout. Unfortunately he was not the maverick right when he should have been.

That would have done it.

652 Osama Bin Asshat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:37:30pm

Homophobic is another word created by the left to describe people who disagree with a political agenda. There are very few people who have an irrational "fear" of gay people.

653 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:37:34pm

re: #643 cincinnati_kid37

It's your story, tell it any way you want.

OK. You are homophobic, in denial, and an assh**le.

654 Dasher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:37:49pm

re: #644 jpd158

Ditto

655 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:38:19pm

re: #633 sleepyone

Walter, you can be a real ball of fire and I agree with about 60% of what you say but your comments are indeed a joy to read. You are indeed a critical thinker in my humble opinion.

Thanks. I've been a bit fired up since this election. I've seen the typical round up the wagons in a circle and we can all sit around the campfire and pat ourselves on the back instead of critically examining what happened.

Oh, and on the other 40 percent of my comments, I hope I at least keep you awake!

656 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:38:23pm
657 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:39:04pm

re: #197 Sharmuta

What? You're against the Money-hole?! ;)

658 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:39:20pm

re: #634 Tigger2005

I am saying they were not worth risking the continued existence of this nation as anything resembling the United States of America over, and people who couldn't figure out THAT need to learn a few things themselves.

Pretending you're smarting that those who defect doesn't work either but you seem determined to try. Good luck with that.

659 Dasher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:39:22pm

re: #653 Cattt

OK. You are homophobic, in denial, and an assh**le.

I think you just pointed out it is you who is the a$$h*le

660 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:39:47pm

re: #634 Tigger2005

I am not missing this. You just keep on believing this, no matter how many posts I've put up addressing this issue. You're still not getting what I'm saying. I'm not saying we should ignore these reasons. I am saying they were not worth risking the continued existence of this nation as anything resembling the United States of America over, and people who couldn't figure out THAT need to learn a few things themselves.

I'm with Killgore on this- it's too late, the election's over. What's done is done, and we all expect it to suck.

But I've already said a number of times now, fisc-cons are pissed and not voting republican. What are we going to do about it? I've been trying to urge involvement in the party- it changes on a grass-roots level first. Some people have decided to do that, and I'm happy for that, but this is the problem laid bare- the fisc-cons are pissed. Bringing them back is key, because we can't win without them. This is a coalition party, not a lock-step party like the left. Politics is the art of compromise- we better figure one out, because we need it.

661 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:39:48pm

re: #604 sandspur

re: #118 FightingBack

The Good Doctor is a socialist. He's tired of the rat race and would like a little snooze under the government umbrella.

I'm guessing he's not a surgeon.

I believe he is a radiologist.

Whatever he is, he's against socialized medicine. Maybe the Dems will oblige him.

662 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:40:05pm
663 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:40:33pm

re: #508 Wendya

I stopped listening to Rush and the other talking heads 3 years ago... about the same time I yanked the satellite dish off the roof and canceled service.

My politics haven't changed since I cast my first vote for Reagan. I know full well I'm not ever going to get what I want when it comes to change in government but I feel an obligation to go to the polls and use my vote to limit the damage as much as I'm able. It would be nice to dream about an alternative party that would be an echo chamber for everything I believe but it's not going to happen.

But it happened with Goldwater's influence, Reagan's influence, the '94 congress (for a while) ... and it will happen again. As uncle Milty used to say -- wait for real or perceived times of crises for real radical liberal (classical) change ... like Reagan after Carter. Reagan, at least, stopped the growth in government (compared to GDP). I don't even know if that's changed with Bush (W). ...(as % of GDP)

664 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:40:39pm

re: #653 Cattt

OK. You are homophobic, in denial, and an assh**le.

Well, I hope you're feeling better now.

665 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:40:45pm

re: #647 Intrepid

The article doesn't say he voted for 0bama.

666 Hening  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:40:49pm

This guy has got to be kidding. Obama doesn't support Gay marriage either. Individual rights seem to miss the whole idea of murdering infants? And this guy is a physician? This smells of another liberal that claims he has always voted Republican.

This guy voted for the most dangerous man ever to become president because of stem cell research? Has the good doctor read any medical journals on the subject or is he just spouting talking points?

Hey doc, between abortions this week, get a pink dress and join the rest of your old Republican buddies.

667 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:41:44pm

re: #637 Walter L. Newton

You are right there, but I would make an educated guess he voted for Obama. He does not strike me as a Bob Barr kinda guy...

I am un-religious myself. I was force fed Catholicism from birth to 17 years old. I rebelled and stopped attending. Then after my "failed liberal indoctrination" at the University of Colorado at Boulder during Reagan's first term, I stop believing. Now, I am not sure...So, when some people in the Republican Party starts linking their religion to my party and making it part and parcel of the fiber of the party, it bothers me a bit. Perhaps I am not too far from the good Doctor in that regard. But, I can tell you I would not vote at all before I would vote for Obama.

668 3 wood  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:41:58pm

In market news, the futures are down slightly, the Nikkei is up a little over 1% and the Hang Seng is down a little over 1%.

The market seems confused, as is par for the course lately.

669 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:42:14pm

re: #665 Sharmuta

He abstained in the presidental vote, but voted Dem in all else.

670 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:42:16pm

IF Republicans want to ever win again they will get back to basics in their planks.
Are we pro-life? If we stood firmly for smaller government, would it even be an issue?
As for gay rights, capitalism works: {self-deleted}.
Border-philes would vote Republican if we stood tall for a strong military, rather than one weakened by seeping borders.
BACK TO BASICS!

671 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:42:48pm

re: #615 Intrepid

Please show me where John McCain did or said that.


McCain had his own detractors but the VP pick of Palin with an elderly candidate was too much for many people to stomach.

672 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:42:54pm

Well, this is just more useless post mortem. The kind I said I would stop reading.
I strongly disagree with the writer, but do have the following prayer for him.

I pray that the chains of servitude and subjugation that he and his family came here to escape now hang heavy upon his most worthy neck. That is a life lesson that he richly deserves, and one that he, and the rest of us, are about to enjoy.

673 Mich-again  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:43:15pm

One thing I really don't understand about the Discovery Institute is that their leader, Bruce Chapman claims to be a Roman Catholic, but the Pope himself would tell Chapman that Creationism (aka "The world is 6,000 years old and cavemen roamed the world with dinosaurs") is pure hooey. He is veering way from Roman Catholicism if he is pushing the notion that Genesis is a literal account of creation.

Maybe Pope Benedict should send him a letter.

674 sandspur  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:43:27pm

re: #617 outsidephilly

nah, I'm thinking podiatrist

No, I mean he is really a radiologist

675 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:43:29pm

re: #652 Osama Bin Asshat

Homophobic is another word created by the left to describe people who disagree with a political agenda. There are very few people who have an irrational "fear" of gay people.

You are right, strictly speaking, since people use the term for people who hate gays, not for people who fear them, rationally or otherwise.

There are people who hate gays, plain and simple, and bring in non sequiturs like "he must be a homo" when they disagree with someone.

676 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:43:32pm

re: #668 3 wood

In market news, the futures are down slightly, the Nikkei is up a little over 1% and the Hang Seng is down a little over 1%.

The market seems confused, as is par for the course lately.

Sounds like the calm before the storm.

677 theparson  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:43:34pm
678 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:43:35pm

I have posed this question before with no response, but I will try again.

One of the biggest issues of course is abortion. Obviously one side of the party wishes the other side to stand down on the issue as they feel it is driving fiscal voters away.

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but it seems some feel the opposition should be less rigid. Thinking in terms of the mother's life at stake, rape, etc.

The whole "rape is a great reason for an abortion" is really, well, for lack of a better phrase, effed up.

If we can agree that rape is trauma, I hope, and abortion is trauma, then the whole "let us perform a trauma to fix a trauma" rationale for making abortion legal means that instead of making the choice based on personal conviction and faith, like I did to keep my son, and being considered brave, or even strong, women who choose as I did may find themselves questioned as to why they would NOT have one, when the CLEARLY should have a la Palin and Trig

Does anyone who feels that social conservatives should stand down, would include standing down on their opposition to federal funding for abortion?

Only when Boy Scout Troops can get funding for THEIR activities. . .without changing their charter

Moreover, specifically because we know legislation will be coming forth with respect to socialized medicine, and I feel there will be strong arguments from the proponents to include federal funding for abortion?


Socialized medicine will cover EVERYTHING- from boobs to butts, to rehab, to clean needles for addicts, and all the things in between. Doctors will stop leaving their own socialized medicine countries, and med students will be AMAZED at how little they will be paid by the government for their skills as doctor. . .G5 maybe?

Also- with every person covered. . .waiting times for all services will increase- and if you like the idea of having what you can pay for. . .tough- socialized medicine makes it a rule to evaluate your elective procedures. . .nose jobs, lipo. . .all must be examined and approved in such a system. . .

679 186kps  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:43:39pm

Here is the Left...speak your mind only if you echo what we say or the government should shut you down. (warning...far left nutroot link)

680 Rancher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:43:47pm

re: #560 MrSnuggles

The whiners are the people blaming folks like me that are against abortion and gay rights. If these people think this party will get anywhere without us, they are sorely mistaken, that's all.

What exactly do you need a candidate to do to get your vote? Is it enough that they push for parental notification and abolishing partial birth abortion except when the life of the mother is at stake, or do they need to advocate an abortion ban? Is abolishing gay marriage nationally a must? Is it enough to ban federally funded fetal stem cell research or do you need a ban on all fetal stem cell research? Do we have any wiggle room here? Just got here so forgive me if you've already answered these questions.

681 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:43:50pm

re: #527 cincinnati_kid37

just don't ask from more from society than what I am afforded as a Hetro, good looking White guy.

Oh, yeah. Just this.

682 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:43:54pm

re: #669 Dan G.

The article says:

But I didn't vote for a single Republican in 2008.

That doesn't mean he voted 0bama, but it's being translated that way.

683 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:44:22pm

re: #606 armaros

I happen to think that outlawing it would not achieve that end but drive it under ground like Coke, Prostitution and other "sins". I am also sure that most "Pro Life" Americans would also agree with that thus making the direct connection between pro life and wanting to ban abortions a tenuous one at best.


Actually, that's not true, unfortunately. One big problem lots of religious/social conservatives have with McCain originated in 1999/2000. He said he is pro-life (and his voting record is 100% anti-abortion) but said publicly that he was interested in working with pro-choice people to reduce the number of abortions while looking toward a change in Roe v Wade. Religio-cons went nuts...leading to all kinds of revolting push-polling in South Carolina in 2000, and horrible flyers handed out at megachurches saying McCain supported abortion, etc.

684 Dasher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:44:38pm

re: #669 Dan G.

He abstained in the presidental vote, but voted Dem in all else.

I was ready to abstain in the presidential vote myself until Sarah Palin came along. I have never ever voted for a Democrat.

685 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:44:50pm

re: #659 Dasher

I think you just pointed out it is you who is the a$$h*le

I think you should keep out of this, unless you plan to explain why you said that, bud. I wasn't referring my comment to you, and your comment is completely ad hominem.

686 Tigger2005  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:45:11pm

People disagreeing with you does not mean they are "attacking" you. But if you can't handle disagreement, then yes, this is probably not the place for you.

And believe me I would disagree strongly with your claim that the U.S. has a "Bible-based" governmental structure. If Cobbler is no longer here, could someone give me the Bible passages that describe a government structure similar to the U.S. government?

re: #369 Cobber1

This is a sad day for me. As an almost daily visitor this will be may last visit to this great blog.

Unfortunately I no longer feel welcome here. My belief in the value of all life (even the un-born), my belief in a purposeful life (not a cosmic accident), and my belief in the Bible based structure of the US government, are now regularily attacked here. I can tell when I am no longer welcome.

I know I will be missed little, and most will say good riddance but I wanted to say, thanks for the ride. This really is a great blog. All the best.

687 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:45:43pm

re: #667 Desert Dog

You are right there, but I would make an educated guess he voted for Obama. He does not strike me as a Bob Barr kinda guy...

I am un-religious myself. I was force fed Catholicism from birth to 17 years old. I rebelled and stopped attending. Then after my "failed liberal indoctrination" at the University of Colorado at Boulder during Reagan's first term, I stop believing. Now, I am not sure...So, when some people in the Republican Party starts linking their religion to my party and making it part and parcel of the fiber of the party, it bothers me a bit. Perhaps I am not too far from the good Doctor in that regard. But, I can tell you I would not vote at all before I would vote for Obama.

I won't assume. He didn't say. I did the Catholic school thing for 12 years. Sorry about the UC at Boulder. Any direct linking politics and/or a politician with religion is verboten to me.

And no, I was not happy with the party or the candidate but I wouldn't vote for Obama.

688 sleepyone  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:45:55pm

re: #666 Hening

Hey doc, between abortions this week, get a pink dress and join the rest of your old Republican buddies.

That may be the funniest thing I've read this evening.

689 Silhouette  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:45:57pm

This may be a record. Almost 700 comments and we are still ON TOPIC.

690 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:45:59pm

re: #594 Sharmuta

That was the deciding factor for the Catholic fisc-con I know. McCain backed the bailout, he said "no Mac".

I can believe that. It's kinda like when George H. W. Bush reneged on his tax promise!

691 Haverwilde  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:46:11pm

Good night all. See you next Sunday.

692 Dasher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:46:20pm

re: #685 Cattt

Can't take it eh, but you can dish it.

693 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:46:42pm

re: #678 DisturbedEma

Ouch - complicated issue! Good points.

694 pat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:46:51pm

I think we have another "life long Republican" pushing the base. Frankly I do no fear the so called conservative religious pressure so evident to others. I see it. I hear it. I ignore it. Just like everyone else I know. They are surely more responsible than Code Pinko, ACORN and all the other Democratic proxy groups.

695 Mich-again  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:46:59pm

re: #662 Iron Fist

Knowing what Jefferson was thinking is a valid path for trying to understand the circumstances surrounding the Drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but it is not infallible Holy writ.

Its as close as it gets for me. As for this..

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

I think that was more observation than a strategy.

696 CharlieBravo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:47:20pm

re: #611 outsidephilly

Great reminder! Yes, those organizations, generally, do have monies earmarked for such needs as mentioned by intrepid!

Not to change the important subject. But please check 'side effects' of medication especially if you care for elderly. Statin for instance can produce 'global transitory amnesia' leading to symptoms similar to alzheimers as well as muscle pain that can be confused with 'old age diseases' and cause loss of balance.

697 Floral Giraffe  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:47:24pm

re: #526 Intrepid

God Bless you & your Mom. Hang in there. This disease is so hard on everyone. I have a mom & Uncle with it, and know the struggles. Hang in there! {hugs}

698 HelloDare  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:47:42pm

Is he this Paul Tsieh?
His picture is on the right. You can reach him by email.

699 Outrider  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:47:49pm

re: #73 zombie

Help?

I've just made this post at zombietime, moments ago.

But I have not yet publicized it. Before I do so, I request:

Do you have any suggestions/ideas/comments for this piece before I "go public" with it?

Is it worth pursuing? Any and all constructive criticism would be much appreciated. Post it here! Thanks.

...etc.

I think it is an excellent post as usual and went ahead and posted it on my site.

700 sleepyone  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:47:58pm

re: #633 sleepyone

Walter, you can be a real ball of fire and I agree with about 60% of what you say but your comments are indeed a joy to read. You are indeed a critical thinker in my humble opinion.

Did I just say "indeed" twice in two consecutive sentences? My proofreader/copy editor wife would not approve!

701 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:48:05pm

re: #690 Fearless Fred

I can believe that. It's kinda like when George H. W. Bush reneged on his tax promise!

Pretty much. And you could say it was pissed off fisc-cons going for Perot that cost us THAT election.

MAYBE... there's a pattern developing here...

702 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:48:09pm
703 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:49:00pm

im an old timers here at lgf and IIRC, abortion was one of charles veboten topics. am i disremembing incorrectly? have times changed? just asking-not pot stirring.

704 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:49:34pm

re: #689 Silhouette

This may be a record. Almost 700 comments and we are still ON TOPIC.

OT

Why is it only one company is allowed to make Monopoly? (Stephen Wright)

705 jaunte  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:49:44pm

re: #702 Iron Fist

Yeah, I don't get the logic of the move.

706 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:49:45pm

re: #698 HelloDare

Is he this Paul Tsieh?
His picture is on the right. You can reach him by email.

Bless his heart.

707 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:49:46pm

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where social issues were even mentioned in 2008?

/I seem to remember that it was Iraq, the economy, the economy, and the economy 24/7

708 sleepyone  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:49:52pm

re: #655 Walter L. Newton

Thanks. I've been a bit fired up since this election. I've seen the typical round up the wagons in a circle and we can all sit around the campfire and pat ourselves on the back instead of critically examining what happened.

Oh, and on the other 40 percent of my comments, I hope I at least keep you awake!

I'm always awake when reading LGF!

709 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:50:12pm

re: #692 Dasher

Can't take it eh, but you can dish it.

Can't take what? You aren't dishing anything out, little fellow. I asked you to explain yourself, and you come back with another insult.

All you did was butt into something that had nothing to do with anything about you or that you posted and called me an asshole. What do you want me to do, react in kind? You are a cipher.

/bet it's drinking

710 Caliredst8r  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:50:15pm

re: #689 Silhouette

How 'bout them Steelers!

711 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:50:22pm

re: #650 Cicero05

Again, the guy lives in Marilyn Musgrave's district. I lived between CO Springs and Denver for 4 years, and the woman is the poster child for religio/social con nutbaggery. If she was the public face of the GOP for this guy, I can somewhat sympathize.

BUT...McCain has always been pro-science, anti-entitlement explosion, pro-national security, and pro-second amendment. He supported using "excess" embryos that were created for IVF for embryonic stem cell research. He opposed all the boondoggles that Bush either championed or signed.

So his refusal to vote for McCain makes no sense.

712 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:50:24pm

re: #689 Silhouette

It's called Soul Searching...

We have 2 years to try and get some ground back...

We have 4 years before our next whack at "the One"

So, we should all take a good long look in the mirror and figure out what we really believe in and how we can translate that belief to viable candidates

713 Osama Bin Asshat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:50:37pm

re: #707 Killian Bundy

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where social issues were even mentioned in 2008?

/I seem to remember that it was Iraq, the economy, the economy, and the economy 24/7


totally!

714 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:50:50pm

re: #701 Sharmuta

Pretty much. And you could say it was pissed off fisc-cons going for Perot that cost us THAT election.

MAYBE... there's a pattern developing here...

You and your patterns...you are always talking about patterns...there seems to be some pattern to you talking about patterns. ;)

715 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:50:50pm

re: #707 Killian Bundy

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where social issues were even mentioned in 2008?

/I seem to remember that it was Iraq, the economy, the economy, and the economy 24/7

You are absolutely correct. The rest of that stuff never even showed up on the radar screen.

716 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:50:51pm

Good night, Lizards.

717 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:51:05pm

re: #700 sleepyone

Did I just say "indeed" twice in two consecutive sentences? My proofreader/copy editor wife would not approve!

In Polish, those vowels in "indeed" would cost you a fortune.

718 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:51:05pm

re: #686 Tigger2005

People disagreeing with you does not mean they are "attacking" you. But if you can't handle disagreement, then yes, this is probably not the place for you.

And believe me I would disagree strongly with your claim that the U.S. has a "Bible-based" governmental structure. If Cobbler is no longer here, could someone give me the Bible passages that describe a government structure similar to the U.S. government?

I don't think our government is "Bible based" per se.
I do believe that the basic structure of our way of government are derived from many of tenets of Judeo/Christianity.

719 theparson  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:51:10pm

re: #703 mikeymom

im an old timers here at lgf and IIRC, abortion was one of charles veboten topics. am i disremembing incorrectly? have times changed? just asking-not pot stirring.

As am I. Times, they are a changin'.
I think I remember some who got hit with the ban stick on this topic.

720 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:51:12pm

I find it interesting that many of Dr. Hseih's detractors are sardonically welcoming him to socialized medicine as though the Republican's haven't been pushing that cart as well (i.e. prescription drug coverage) among other socialist activities (nationalization of banks and insurance).

Its been said here at LGF many times in many contexts: You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. Deal with it. The SocCons have betrayed the trust of those of us who allied with them to effect smaller government, lower taxes, individual responsibility, etc... they shouldn't piss and moan, they had it coming.

721 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:51:53pm

re: #681 MandyManners

just don't ask from more from society than what I am afforded as a Hetro, good looking White guy.

Oh, yeah. Just this.

I never had it That good.

722 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:51:58pm

re: #703 mikeymom

have times changed?


Yes, times have changed. Abortion and evolution are now regular topics.

723 Jimmah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:52:37pm

There's a sign at the entrance to the political wasteland, which reads -

"To hell with the wider electorate! We don't need 'em!"

Nite folks :)

724 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:52:40pm

re: #716 MandyManners

Good night, Lizards.

Good night sunshine.

725 sleepyone  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:52:41pm

re: #717 Walter L. Newton

In Polish, those vowels in "indeed" would cost you a fortune.

Can I get a lifeline Regis?

Wait, that's the wrong show...

726 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:52:44pm

re: #720 Dan G.

I find it interesting that many of Dr. Hseih's detractors are sardonically welcoming him to socialized medicine as though the Republican's haven't been pushing that cart as well (i.e. prescription drug coverage) among other socialist activities (nationalization of banks and insurance).

Its been said here at LGF many times in many contexts: You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. Deal with it. The SocCons have betrayed the trust of those of us who allied with them to effect smaller government, lower taxes, individual responsibility, etc... they shouldn't piss and moan, they had it coming.

Betrayal is not too strong a word to use here. It is appropriate.

727 Silhouette  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:53:09pm

re: #707 Killian Bundy

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where social issues were even mentioned in 2008?

/I seem to remember that it was Iraq, the economy, the economy, and the economy 24/7

And the issue that was mentioned everyday without being mentioned.

It was so historic, very historic, first time in history that, well, it was historic. And he doesn't look like other presidents on dollar bills are such.

728 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:53:13pm

re: #715 rawmuse

You are absolutely correct. The rest of that stuff never even showed up on the radar screen.

/so, why is this guy whining?

729 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:53:19pm

I'm still waiting for my apology from Walter L. Newton.

730 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:53:22pm

re: #722 Killgore Trout

Yes, times have changed. Abortion and evolution are now regular topics.

I wonder how massive abortions would effect evolution over time?

731 Tigger2005  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:53:31pm

I agree. Voting for Obama was simply not rational. These explanations people are giving for why they voted for Obama (or at least did not vote for McCain) shouldn't be ignored, but at the same time, they cannot rationalize what was basically an insane, irresponsible, and possibly suicidal decision. Obama's election instantly made this world a more dangerous place and instantly increased our economic vulnerability.

I voted for Reagan and then Bush I. Then I voted Democrat in 4 straight elections. I didn't shift back to the Republicans until after Bush had won re-election (and after I discovered LGF). But as I told people often during the campaign (I worked as a volunteer), even if I had still been a Democrat I could not have voted for Obama. Because I'm not crazy.

re: #650 Cicero05

Oh no, another "lifelong conservative" who's voted for Obama, a politician who represents the polar opposite of everything that conservatism means. Sure, and I'm a lifelong Catholic who's been worshipping Satan lately because I don't agree with the Pope's stand on the finer points of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

As a very secular conservative, I don't agree with the emphasis that Republicans place on certain social issues, and I believe that abortion is a dead-end fight. Even so, I not only voted for McCain, I also contributed money because as a conservative, the idea of an Obama presidency scares the hell out of me. I submit that such is the rational reaction of a secular conservative to the presidential choince in 2008. Casting one's vote for the enemy is not rational.

There is a legitimate argument to be made that social issue positions result in a net loss of Republican voters. But people like Dr. Tsieh who claim to be "lifelong conservatives" turned apostates are either delusional or bald-faced liars. (Several bogus "lifelong-conservatives-turned-Obama-su pporters" were exposed as frauds during the campaign.) Either way, their prescriptions for Republican policy should be ignored in the debate.

732 3 wood  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:53:34pm

re: #676 FurryOldGuyJeans

Sounds like the calm before the storm.

With Obama in the White House, I think it's going to be hard times for a couple years, at least.

You watch, he will make the classic mistake of raising taxes.

733 cincinnati_kid37  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:53:36pm

re: #685 Cattt

I think you should keep out of this, unless you plan to explain why you said that, bud. I wasn't referring my comment to you, and your comment is completely ad hominem.

You seem like someone who can dish it out but not take it. Then that's just an off the cuff appraisal...

734 Mich-again  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:54:05pm

re: #668 3 wood

In market news, the futures are down slightly, the Nikkei is up a little over 1% and the Hang Seng is down a little over 1%.

The market seems confused, as is par for the course lately.

Nothing will be totally settled until the economy can find a solid foundation to start rebuilding from. And I am kind of wondering how long till we hear clamoring for a global currency.

735 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:54:10pm

re: #719 theparson

re: #722 Killgore Trout

yes, and with all the discussion and fighting, i doubt any minds have been changed.

736 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:54:23pm

re: #728 Killian Bundy

/so, why is this guy whining?

Because he is a complete moron, IMHO.

737 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:54:36pm

re: #707 Killian Bundy

As though they needed to be explicitly stated... actions speak louder than words. Do you think that people only vote based on what was directly talked about during the campaign?

738 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:54:36pm

re: #721 cincinnati_kid37

I never had it That good.

Maybe that's because you waste too much of your time whining about being a "Hetro, good looking White guy" who never had it that good.

739 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:55:01pm

re: #702 Iron Fist

It still doesn't track. If the fis-cons are pissed off at the Republicans for their lack of restraint, what on God's green earth do they think they are voting for by voting for Obama? Higher taxes, increased spending, more Federal Regulation are the cure for these problems. It'd be like a black dude who saw that his interests weren't being represented by either party deciding to join the Klan. To show his anger with the mainstream parties. Well, good luck with that.

Hello? --- sure it tracks ... heh (maybe).
Fisc-cons are pissed and not voting republican. What are we going to do about it?

SCOTT RASMUSSEN --
Barack Obama won the White House by campaigning against an unpopular incumbent in a time of economic anxiety and lingering foreign policy concerns. He offered voters an upbeat message, praised the nation as a land of opportunity, promised tax cuts to just about everyone, and overcame doubts about his experience with a strong performance in the presidential debates.

Does this sound familiar? It should. Mr. Obama followed the approach that worked for Ronald Reagan. His victory confirmed that voters still embrace the guiding beliefs of the Reagan era.

740 pat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:55:03pm

From his blog:
"Both today's Left and Right are really two sides of the same coin. (Yes, I know, depressingly unoriginal observation, there.) They're both asking for the same thing -- they want the government to steal from someone and give to them what they feel themselves incapable of producing on their own. Those on the Right are looking for unearned moral status. Those on the Left are looking for unearned material wealth. Neither those on the Left nor on the Right realize that asking for the unearned is always a single problem, and that there's no real difference between them."

In fact I know hundreds of people who feel just this way. If you think both parties are equal, and Bush surely showed that he was a spender of unparalleled ability, then adopting the hatred of religion his wife advocates might be a reasonable stance.

741 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:55:17pm

re: #732 3 wood

With Obama in the White House, I think it's going to be hard times for a couple years, at least.

You watch, he will make the classic mistake of raising taxes.

I do not want to have Obama rehabilitate Carter from being the worst president! *WAH*

742 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:55:28pm

re: #484 Mich-again

Just to clarify one thing to the author of that temper tantrum aimed at the GOP.. Many of the real social conservatives didn't support McCain/Palin because they thought it was an abomination that a woman would put her career over her the needs of her family. I remember following spinoff links to some fire and brimstone preacher sites after McCain chose Palin and how they could no longer support the Republican Party because of it. I actually thought the GOP should use some of that nonsense as campaign material to show the world that the GOP had now officially pissed off the Religious Right.

Holy Crap! Where did you see that? I have many religious relatives who were THRILLED with Sarah Palin!

Must be some very conservative folks. Along the line of "women sit in the back and don't speak during the church service".

743 capitalist piglet  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:55:43pm

re: #267 experiencedtraveller

The post is about So-cons, not fisc-cons. I would think that no lizard has any issue at all with fiscal conservatism.

I certainly don't - but there is a feeling among some in the Party who are very much socially to the right that the moderates are the ones that should be purged.

Being both socially and fiscally conservative myself (though not to a point where I would withhold my vote over a single issue either way...I'm much more moderate than the furthest right of the so-cons, to be sure), I don't see why anyone needs to be drummed out. I think it's suicide to continue this back-biting on both sides of the argument, and entirely counterintuitive to want to shrink our tent after losing a critical election like this one.

We need to accept each other's motivations and grow our party, imo.

744 Dom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:56:11pm

This is an outsider's opinion (UK) but surely he's spot on. If Republicans argue from religious principle they have no argument that failing to support them is voting for socialism, they are destroying their party's chances and support base for a long time to come. Why are Republicans ridiculed on the left as outdated nutjobs? Because those that are speak loudly and stridently and resent everyone else.

745 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:56:13pm

re: #671 Killgore Trout

McCain had his own detractors but the VP pick of Palin with an elderly candidate was too much for many people to stomach.

Sorry Killgore, but that makes zero sense as well. Sarah Palin has governed as a crusader against waste and corruption, pretty much in every government job she's held. She never once tried to force social/religious conservatism on her constituents.

People who voted against her based upon her privately held religious beliefs are bigots.

746 logboy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:56:28pm

I reposted the above article to a conservative group on facebook that is overrun with the "religious right". Yesterday I was chastised for stating that most Americans don't give a rats ass about abortion if they don't have a job, are in danger of losing their house, so on and so forth. That, and many people don't like having religion and religious values crammed down their throat. So today I posted the above article in its entirety, but with this addendum at the top:

"I expect that many here- especially those who blasted me yesterday for my comments on abortion- will simply blow this article off and continue blaming McCain, Palin, or whoever they can for the election loss. If you ARE one of those people then this article is clearly directed at YOU. So before you start typing away on a rebuttal, read the damn article."

Any bets on the number of replies? Anyone? Not one reply. No rebuttal, no nothing. Yesterday they swarmed over my opinions like flies on shit. Today, deafening silence. From the looks of things, "Gay Rights Activists Attack Church, Media Silent" and "This makes me support proposition 8" are topics that are far more important.

747 Geepers  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:56:33pm

Cicero05 (#650),

Oh no, another "lifelong conservative" who's voted for Obama, a politician who represents the polar opposite of everything that conservatism means. Sure, and I'm a lifelong Catholic who's been worshipping Satan lately because I don't agree with the Pope's stand on the finer points of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

That's, well, very Ciceroesque.

748 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:56:35pm
749 slokat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:56:35pm

re: #614 Nevergiveup

Are polygamists red meat or chicken kinda people? Just curious if i ever get invited?

...answer probably depends if you are talking to male polygamists, or female polygamists! Not sure about gay polygamists...

750 pat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:56:50pm

It appears that the good Doctor is firmly against socialized medicine. Hence I find his current position interesting. But we shall all learn together what the next battle shall be.

751 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:56:53pm

re: #729 DesertSage

I'm still waiting for my apology from Walter L. Newton.

I apologized three or four time up thread. Please look over your list and refresh my memory. What the hell did I do to you:)

Please, my ex-wife told me to never go to bed mad, so I would like to clear this up quickly.

752 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:57:02pm

re: #698 HelloDare

Is he this Paul Tsieh?
His picture is on the right. You can reach him by email.

Yeah, I think that is he. His name was spelled Hsieh in the Denver Post article, and he is shown as the co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM).

753 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:57:12pm

re: #736 rawmuse

Because he is a complete moron, IMHO.

/I don't recall any of the candidates even uttering the word abortion and they were all against gay marriage, WTF?

754 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:57:23pm

re: #731 Tigger2005

they're not crazy ... read what i just posted ... your neighbors aren't crazy (well, not all of them) ... they're misinformed.

755 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:57:55pm

re: #743 capitalist piglet

Each group wants to point fingers at the other groups so they can be blameless for the reasons for the failure of McCain.

756 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:58:12pm

re: #727 Silhouette

This election was vacuous and empty...it was all about Obama's buddys and past from the right and all about nothing from him...if you landed from another planet and watched our political process over the past 1.5 years, you would not know what either Presidential Candidate actually stood for...they both tried to out pander each other and conveniently avoided actual issues...I voted for McCain with even more pain than it took to vote for GWB, twice. 300 Million people in this land, and we get those two to pick from...ugh.

757 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:58:17pm

re: #740 pat

Er... from his wife's blog... and a guest poster at that. Literacy is important.

758 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:58:25pm

re: #745 funky chicken

I didn't vote for her for the same reason I didn't vote for Obama; Lack of experience. Claims of bigotry are unfounded.

759 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:58:46pm

re: #740 pat

Those on the Right are looking for unearned moral status. Those on the Left are looking for unearned material wealth.

Perhaps he could speculate who's winning and which side is causing more damage.

760 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:58:47pm

re: #743 capitalist piglet

I certainly don't - but there is a feeling among some in the Party who are very much socially to the right that the moderates are the ones that should be purged.

Being both socially and fiscally conservative myself (though not to a point where I would withhold my vote over a single issue either way...I'm much more moderate than the furthest right of the so-cons, to be sure), I don't see why anyone needs to be drummed out. I think it's suicide to continue this back-biting on both sides of the argument, and entirely counterintuitive to want to shrink our tent after losing a critical election like this one.

We need to accept each other's motivations and grow our party, imo.

You know, the religion thing is not just a christian GOP thing. . .well, the observance issue.

I am outside looking in in my faith- being an observant kosher Jew is seen as kind of backwards by many of the people I know who are Jewish. . .the "worry" that the kids will grow up, go to college and "be approached by Chabad" is so sad- it seems like being religious and different is worse than driving on Shabbos or eating a cheeseburger from McDonalds. . .

761 Cicero05  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:58:51pm

re: #747 Geepers

Cicero05 (#650),


That's, well, very Ciceroesque.

That's my specialty. Now, hand me that pentagram and the chicken.

762 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:59:09pm

OK- well. I'm pretty sold on the notion that republicans can't win without fisc-cons. Been going on since 1996. I think this foundational section of the party needs repair, and I'm not alone.

763 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:59:15pm

re: #715 rawmuse

You are absolutely correct. The rest of that stuff never even showed up on the radar screen.

So let me see if I understand. The good doctor voted Dem because of all the social issues that were not debated. He wants greater freedom and individual rights in medicine, so he voted for the Dems, who want to completely take over health care.

What am I missing? This doesn't make sense to me.

764 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 7:59:55pm

re: #751 Walter L. Newton

I apologized three or four time up thread. Please look over your list and refresh my memory. What the hell did I do to you:)

Please, my ex-wife told me to never go to bed mad, so I would like to clear this up quickly.

Walter.

Walter.

It was just a joke. I was just messing with you...using a little levity.

You can have a good nights sleep now. :')

765 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:00:03pm
766 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:00:31pm

re: #751 Walter L. Newton

You are an old school nice guy.

767 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:00:42pm

re: #742 Intrepid

Dr. Laura Schlessinger said the same thing...Palin was walking away from her vital role as mommy. not kidding.

768 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:00:59pm

re: #739 Fearless Fred

Except Reagan offered an actual working philosophy that he could articulate to anyone who asked. Can Obama articulate his positions and political philosophy to anyone that asks? Nope. He did use a similar method to attract votes, but he is missing something Reagan and a lot of: Substance

769 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:01:00pm

re: #765 Iron Fist

You should have made a bumperstiker: NObama - Because I'm not crazy.

:-)


The one I just saw said "If Obama is the answer, it must have been a stupid question"

770 pat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:01:01pm

If anyone actually listened to Palin, on Greta, she stated that her religious beliefs, including those on abortion, were hers alone. That she did not feel she needed to legislate in this area. She is against Roe v Wade, but so are many lawyers who would otherwise support abortion to the extent voters wish. Therefore voters who decided she was a religious nut and voted against her are bigots, to use the MSM analogy.

771 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:01:14pm

re: #763 Cattt

So let me see if I understand. The good doctor voted Dem because of all the social issues that were not debated. He wants greater freedom and individual rights in medicine, so he voted for the Dems, who want to completely take over health care.

What am I missing? This doesn't make sense to me.

The only thing I can think is that the good doctor must be Jewish and is voting against his own best interests like so many of my co-religionists?

772 Silhouette  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:01:17pm

re: #742 Intrepid

Holy Crap! Where did you see that? I have many religious relatives who were THRILLED with Sarah Palin!

Must be some very conservative folks. Along the line of "women sit in the back and don't speak during the church service".

Agreed. I'm about as Bible-thumping as you can get, and myself and my church were thrilled.

Who can find a virtuous woman? The first part of verse 10 literally reads, "Who can find a woman of strength?" The term "virtuous" is from a noun meaning strength, efficiency, ability. Here it refers to strength of character as well as moral strength and firmness.

This Biblical paragon from Proverbs held a job too - she owned a vineyard.

773 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:01:23pm

re: #765 Iron Fist

You should have made a bumperstiker: NObama - Because I'm not crazy.

:-)

I can add that to my Cafe Press store, which is bascially there so I can make myself bumperstickers if I want to.

774 Godzilla  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:01:40pm
I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

The right to keep and bear arms is NOT a partisan issue. Jesus fucking Christ! It will be blue dog democrats that will help defeat the gun-control groups this time around. Fucking stupid bastard! Are you sure this Paul Tsieh isn't a plant form the Brady gun control group?

775 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:01:41pm

This article is flirting heavily with my first ever down ding of a Charles Johnson post. It can be easily refuted so often, and so repeatedly, and so easily, and has been done so in the previous comments.

776 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:01:53pm

re: #758 Killgore Trout

I didn't vote for her for the same reason I didn't vote for Obama; Lack of experience.


I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
William F. Buckley, Jr.

777 DistantThunder  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:02:22pm

The gay marriage thing to me was a yawner. As a member of the LDS faith, we rarely speak about it in church, and we have always have had a live and let live attitude, from the perspective of the members.

Come to find out that where gay marriage is made legal elsewhere in the world, religious people LOSE their religious liberties to maintain a preference for traditional marriage. They lose their rights to teach their faith preferences to their children -and any attempt to do so becomes mandated as hate speech. Advocates of gay marriage then aggressively encroach on the religious liberties of those who do not believe that gay marriage and traditional marriage are of equal efficacy in raising a child.

One of the most potent arguments against same-sex marriage is that it tramples religious freedom. A group of distinguished legal scholars recently published a book called Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, Emerging Conflicts . While they fall on both sides of the issue concerning the desirability of same-sex marriage for our culture, they unanimously agree on one point—that a conflict is brewing for religious freedom, which includes freedom of speech.

Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote in 2004, during the same-sex marriage debate in Massachusetts, ''the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination...The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along."

Religious groups have legitimate concerns that they will be gagged regarding the importance of traditional marriage and family, if same-sex marriage becomes a civil right. Yet, same-sex advocates know it doesn't take the force of law alone to silence opposition. You can harangue and intimidate people into silence. You can threaten their jobs and target their livelihood—even if they have been at their job for 25 years.

The Hypocrisy of the Tolerance Movement

778 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:02:34pm

re: #762 Sharmuta

OK- well. I'm pretty sold on the notion that republicans can't win without fisc-cons. Been going on since 1996. I think this foundational section of the party needs repair, and I'm not alone.

No, you're not alone. I agree with you, as does my father and my best friend. Part of the problem seems to me to be that the temptation to spend as the majority party is very strong. Bring home the bacon always looks like an easy path to re-election.

779 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:02:37pm

re: #767 funky chicken

dr laura is a jerk-aside from the fact that her son is in the miltary. total crap from her mouth

780 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:02:57pm

re: #775 rawmuse

This article is flirting heavily with my first ever down ding of a Charles Johnson post. It can be easily refuted so often, and so repeatedly, and so easily, and has been done so in the previous comments.

It certainly has not been a boring post.

781 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:03:00pm

re: #763 Cattt

So let me see if I understand. The good doctor voted Dem because of all the social issues that were not debated. He wants greater freedom and individual rights in medicine, so he voted for the Dems, who want to completely take over health care.

What am I missing? This doesn't make sense to me.

Beautiful!

782 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:03:15pm

re: #779 mikeymom

dr laura is a jerk-aside from the fact that her son is in the miltary. total crap from her mouth

Really. What is is doing?

783 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:03:40pm

re: #762 Sharmuta

OK- well. I'm pretty sold on the notion that republicans can't win without fisc-cons. Been going on since 1996. I think this foundational section of the party needs repair, and I'm not alone.

Republicans can't win without the religious conservatives either!

That's why I keep telling everyone to stop fighting with each other. EVERYONE should be allowed under the tent. The tent should be made BIGGER...not SMALLER!

If one side purges the other then it's over...say hello to Democrat majorities for decades to come.

784 HelloDare  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:03:42pm

Paul Hsieh's Letter to the Editor on the Republican Party
By Paul Hsieh, MD @ 12:01 AM PermaLink

In the wake of their massive 2008 electoral defeat, the Republican Party is going through a process of self-examination.

Some Republicans, such as former House Majority leader Dick Armey (now chairman of FreedomWorks) are arguing that the Republicans should turn away from the agenda of the Religious Right, and instead stand for small government and fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Armey states his case in this November 7, 2008 OpEd in the Wall Street Journal, "'Compassionate' Conservatism Was a Mistake".

Other Republicans, such as former Congressman J.C. Watts (at one time the number 4 ranking Republican in the House), argue that the Republican Party needs to cater more to the Religious Right.

Mr. Watts states his case in this November 9, 2008 OpEd in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Winning football and winning politics".

I believe that Dick Armey is on the right track and J.C. Watts is on the wrong track. Hence, I was pleased when the November 11, 2008 Las Vegas Review-Journal printed my LTE on this topic (fourth one down the page):

GOP recipe

J.C. Watts is prescribing the exact wrong formula for the Republican Party's problems (Review-Journal, Nov. 9).

I'm an independent voter who supports strong national defense, fiscal responsibility and individual rights (including Second Amendment rights). But I did not vote Republican in 2008 precisely because of their alliance with the Religious Right.

Americans still want small government. In my home "swing" state of Colorado, voters rejected three tax increases to provide more social programs "for the children." But they also resoundingly rejected the anti-abortion Amendment 48 (which would declare a fertilized egg a legal "person") and defeated pro-life conservative Republicans Marilyn Musgrave and Bob Schaffer.

If Republicans reaffirmed the principles of limited government and separation of church and state, then I'd be happy to support them again. But if they stay in bed with the Religious Right, they will continue to alienate many independent voters and lose elections. And deservedly so.

PAUL HSIEH
SEDALIA, CO

785 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:03:55pm

re: #778 Dark_Falcon

No, you're not alone. I agree with you, as does my father and my best friend. Part of the problem seems to me to be that the temptation to spend as the majority party is very strong. Bring home the bacon always looks like an easy path to re-election.

The path to the Dark Side, it is.

786 pat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:03:56pm

re: #763 Cattt

So let me see if I understand. The good doctor voted Dem because of all the social issues that were not debated. He wants greater freedom and individual rights in medicine, so he voted for the Dems, who want to completely take over health care.

What am I missing? This doesn't make sense to me.

You and me both.

787 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:04:02pm

re: #770 pat

If anyone actually listened to Palin, on Greta, she stated that her religious beliefs, including those on abortion, were hers alone. That she did not feel she needed to legislate in this area.

Palin Differs With McCain on Federal Marriage Amendment
She clearly stated that she's in favor of amending the constitution to discriminate against gays. We talked about it here on LGF at the time.

788 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:04:03pm

So- looking ahead- if the fiscal ills continue, and I have no doubt they will get even worse, imagine a way the GOP could win an election WITHOUT an emphasis on the fisc-cons. . .

Discuss, I gave you a topic. . .

789 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:04:17pm

re: #766 Cattt

You are an old school nice guy.

Thanks. But I did go a little crazy up thread. A little of my Brooklyn slipped out.

You know, I left the north east when I was 21, moved to Dallas, found a lot of politeness, then PC moved in, "can't we all get along," all of that.

Once in a while, I just slip back to the way we would shout out at each other from the stoop of our brownstone.

Actually, feels good too!

790 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:05:07pm

re: #775 rawmuse

This article is flirting heavily with my first ever down ding of a Charles Johnson post. It can be easily refuted so often, and so repeatedly, and so easily, and has been done so in the previous comments.

duhhh ... I just didn't wanna say it.

791 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:05:14pm

re: #782 Nevergiveup

dont know dont listen anymore-just caught her occasionally while in car

792 Rancher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:05:17pm

re: #710 Caliredst8r

How 'bout them Steelers!

How 'bout them Cowboys!

793 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:05:37pm

re: #788 DisturbedEma

imagine a way the GOP could win an election WITHOUT an emphasis on the fisc-cons.


Maybe God will miracle their asses into office.

794 guftafs  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:05:37pm

re: #763 Cattt

I think his vote is tactical, a question of who should be blamed for the failures in politics both parties guarantee. At least with Obama, what will not be blamed is pro-capitalism and pro-Americanism.

795 theparson  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:05:40pm

My son signed his Navy re-enlistment papers Friday. Four more years. I don't know if he's reading tonight but, your old man's proud of you, son! Oooorah!

796 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:05:45pm

The "Religious Right" didn't vocally push a single issue or do anything this election cycle.

/except get out and vote for Sarah Palin in spite of John McCain

797 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:05:49pm

re: #792 Rancher

How 'bout them Cowboys!

I never thought I would say this: How 'bout them Cardinals!

798 Nevergiveup  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:06:19pm

re: #792 Rancher

How 'bout them Cowboys!

Pretty boring game

799 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:06:23pm

re: #796 Killian Bundy

The "Religious Right" didn't vocally push a single issue or do anything this election cycle.

/except get out and vote for Sarah Palin in spite of John McCain

That's kinda funny.

800 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:06:24pm

Can anyone bring me up to speed on the PUMA thing this election? Did they not come out, did they cave?

801 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:06:31pm

re: #783 DesertSage

Republicans can't win without the religious conservatives either!

That's why I keep telling everyone to stop fighting with each other. EVERYONE should be allowed under the tent. The tent should be made BIGGER...not SMALLER!

If one side purges the other then it's over...say hello to Democrat majorities for decades to come.

OKAY! Well- maybe the party should figure out how to keep both groups happy, huh? Maybe act like a fiscally conservative party? Stand up for property rights, individual rights, some smaller government, maybe? Hmm? Can I get an order of that, and super-size it please?

802 ducktrapper  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:06:32pm

Besides opposing abortion and gay marriage, things you would expect of any morality based organization, what does the "religious right" do that would freak anyone out? Yet, whenever I mention the threat of radical Islam, I am usually countered by someone saying that the "religious right" scares the bejesus out of him/her way more than any jihadist. Someone has done a great job of shifting the scope of the narrative. The "religious right" support the Republican Party, ergo the GOP is scary. Billy Ayers justifies his bombings by saying the war was bad. 55,000 Americans killed. What about 50+ million Americans eliminated? Isn't it amazing how the left doesn't let the facts confuse the issues.

803 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:06:43pm

re: #792 Rancher

how bout those broncos? heh

804 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:06:49pm

re: #779 mikeymom

dr laura is a jerk-aside from the fact that her son is in the miltary. total crap from her mouth

nope ... she's beautiful man ... sorry -- gotta defend her. Her moral attitude and advice are amazing.

805 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:07:07pm

re: #793 Killgore Trout

Maybe God will miracle their asses into office.

It would seen they would be VITAL to a 2012 win. . .

806 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:07:14pm

re: #744 Dom

This is an outsider's opinion (UK) but surely he's spot on. If Republicans argue from religious principle they have no argument that failing to support them is voting for socialism, they are destroying their party's chances and support base for a long time to come. Why are Republicans ridiculed on the left as outdated nutjobs? Because those that are speak loudly and stridently and resent everyone else.

In some alternate universe John McCain campaigned as a Religious Zealot. But not in this one.

807 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:07:32pm

re: #800 DisturbedEma

Can anyone bring me up to speed on the PUMA thing this election? Did they not come out, did they cave?

They voted. Fisc-cons didn't.

808 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:07:35pm

re: #800 DisturbedEma

Can anyone bring me up to speed on the PUMA thing this election? Did they not come out, did they cave?


I'm not sure they even existed. There might have been a few but I don't think they were a factor in the real world.

809 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:07:50pm

re: #801 Sharmuta

OKAY! Well- maybe the party should figure out how to keep both groups happy, huh? Maybe act like a fiscally conservative party? Stand up for property rights, individual rights, some smaller government, maybe? Hmm? Can I get an order of that, and super-size it please?

EXACTLY!

810 Wendya  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:08:08pm

Quilly Mammoth

Now I know Hsieh's agenda. He and his wife are dedicated Randists. Which explains why he would abandon every other principle just to attack religion.

As Sea Wasp once said "You can not truly appreciate Atlas Shrugged until you have read it in the Original Klingon".

I believe the correct term would be Objectivist.

I will admit I find the reactions to Atlas Shrugged by some Christians a bit amusing. Leftists hate the book as well...

811 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:08:29pm

re: #801 Sharmuta

OKAY! Well- maybe the party should figure out how to keep both groups happy, huh? Maybe act like a fiscally conservative party? Stand up for property rights, individual rights, some smaller government, maybe? Hmm? Can I get an order of that, and super-size it please?

AND emphasize the personal freedoms that come WITH tht small government. . .

812 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:08:40pm

night all- weet dreams

813 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:08:44pm

re: #801 Sharmuta

OKAY! Well- maybe the party should figure out how to keep both groups happy, huh? Maybe act like a fiscally conservative party? Stand up for property rights, individual rights, some smaller government, maybe? Hmm? Can I get an order of that, and super-size it please?

You are quite funny!

814 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:09:09pm

re: #785 Sharmuta

The path to the Dark Side, it is.

GMTA. I was thinking of Yoda's words regarding the Dark Side as I composed that post. "Not stronger; easier, quicker, more seductive." Sadly, given the limits of our political system, easy and quick solutions will always be the most popular ones.

815 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:09:30pm

re: #807 Sharmuta

They voted. Fisc-cons didn't.

Ah, got it. . .so, held hostage by people who were willing to let a tax tax tax tax and UBERspend to perserve their ideological purity?

Niiice.

816 nbenhaim  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:09:34pm

re: #103 MandyManners

I've discussed it with people, not just on this site - I was venting, yeesh.

817 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:09:45pm

re: #814 Dark_Falcon

I caught your wave, dude. Far out.

818 slokat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:09:48pm

re: #701 Sharmuta

Pretty much. And you could say it was pissed off fisc-cons going for Perot that cost us THAT election.

MAYBE... there's a pattern developing here...

...hmmm the pattern is don't trust the FisCons? They vote against there own interests...

no sarc

819 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:09:54pm

re: #811 DisturbedEma

AND emphasize the personal freedoms that come WITH tht small government.


Yup, that's exactly what the Republicans are missing. Stay out of my life and lower my taxes. It's a very simple formula.

820 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:09:57pm

As far as I'm concerned, it all boils down to the Constitution. If it's in there (and backed up when needed with input from the SCOTUS), then it can be done. If I don't like it, but it is in there, then it's ok with me if people do whatever it is and I do something else that also is in there (or backed up by the SCOTUS). One reason the appointment of justices is so important - I want them to look to the Constitution, not invent new stuff out of their heads that is not backed up by the Constitution.

What gets me, personally, is all the unnecessary spending going on. I am upset with all the so-called conservatives that are throwing money down that big federal rat hole.

821 DistantThunder  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:10:26pm

One nuclear attack anywhere in the world and 70% of the country will be cowering behind the skirts of the Republican party demanding to be protected by the adults yet again.

822 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:10:31pm

re: #793 Killgore Trout

Maybe God will miracle their asses into office.

I bet'cha if you prayed more!

823 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:10:34pm

re: #814 Dark_Falcon

GMTA. I was thinking of Yoda's words regarding the Dark Side as I composed that post. "Not stronger; easier, quicker, more seductive." Sadly, given the limits of our political system, easy and quick solutions will always be the most popular ones.

That's why we will see our first Sith Lord sworn in as President in January...where were all the good Jedi this time around?

824 hermit  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:10:40pm

re: #801 Sharmuta

I would like to preserve my LIBERTY to make completely immoral choices, at my own expense, until I die. I am all with ya' girl!

825 MandyManners  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:10:50pm
826 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:10:52pm
827 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:11:13pm

re: #819 Killgore Trout

Yup, that's exactly what the Republicans are missing. Stay out of my life and lower my taxes. It's a very simple formula.


AND keep as much of your own money to spend as you will

828 slokat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:11:14pm

pimf - "their own interests"...

829 Wendya  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:11:16pm

re: #682 Sharmuta

The article says:

That doesn't mean he voted 0bama, but it's being translated that way.

It would have been helpful if he'd mentioned who he voted for and why. If he is an Objectivist, I can't imagine he'd vote for Obama.

830 sleepyone  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:11:25pm

re: #671 Killgore Trout

McCain had his own detractors but the VP pick of Palin with an elderly candidate was too much for many people to stomach.

Palin was the main reason that I could vote for McCain without feeling too compromised. Granted, I would have voted for McCain even if he had Bart Simpson for his running mate but Sarah Palin made his ticket more acceptable for me.

If anyone decided that Palin made a vote for McCain difficult then I say they are not honest conservatives (fiscal or social) and certainly not Republicans. You just can't withhold your vote for a half-assed ticket when the alternative will give you everything that is diametrically opposed to your ideals, if you actually hold those ideals dear.

831 Ozark Mountain Daredevil  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:11:59pm

re: #739 Fearless Fred

Hello? --- sure it tracks ... heh (maybe).
Fisc-cons are pissed and not voting republican. What are we going to do about it?

SCOTT RASMUSSEN --
Barack Obama won the White House by campaigning against an unpopular incumbent in a time of economic anxiety and lingering foreign policy concerns. He offered voters an upbeat message, praised the nation as a land of opportunity, promised tax cuts to just about everyone, and overcame doubts about his experience with a strong performance in the presidential debates.

Does this sound familiar? It should. Mr. Obama followed the approach that worked for Ronald Reagan. His victory confirmed that voters still embrace the guiding beliefs of the Reagan era.

Well said, Fred. Upding for that link!

832 just another four-letter word  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:12:00pm

re: #73 zombie

Late to the game, Zombie, but:

PRINT IT!

JAFLW

833 hermit  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:12:07pm

re: #818 slokat

...hmmm the pattern is don't trust the FisCons?

[pssst... don't trust antone who can name the pigeon hole they fit into]

834 logboy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:12:12pm

Instead of concerning ourselves with how to refute the article, why not take a few moments for some self-reflection? I'm hearing an outspoken few here stating over and over "this guy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about", "he's an obvious nutcase", "charles is a dumbshit for posting this". Clearly this article hit a nerve, and I think is obviously hitting the people it was directed at.

835 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:12:14pm

re: #823 Desert Dog

That's why we will see our first Sith Lord sworn in as President in January...where were all the good Jedi this time around?

The anti-Prop 8 forces are busy implementing Order 66.

836 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:12:16pm

re: #823 Desert Dog

Killed by Vader Soros- even the younglings.

837 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:12:18pm

re: #533 Walter L. Newton

Honestly... is there a way that this non-profit can take donations that are targeted to your mom?

Nah - they're a state-wide group. I think any donations would be filtered into the main budget.

But I'm so grateful for their help! Not only do they pay for mom to be in day-care, they also send a social worker out to check on ME! To ask ME how I'm doing!

Heh, I like that! Not that my siblings aren't helpful - they try to help out on Saturdays, but there have been quite a few "missed" Saturdays - but it helps to have someone who knows what I'm going through to ask me questions about myself.

I'm even going to check on signing up at the YMCA - their facility is about 3 miles from our house, and I'm sure I'll be able to qualify for a really cheap rate, since I have no income. I could really stand to get back in shape, maybe lose a couple pounds, or maybe 40! (heh)

Stupid Alzheimer's disease...

838 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:12:27pm
re: #732 3 wood
With Obama in the White House, I think it's going to be hard times for a couple years, at least.


You watch, he will make the classic mistake of raising taxes.

Nah, he is just going to swipe 401k's, mark my words.
Gawd help us
GOODBYE 401K

839 tripletdad  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:12:27pm

re: #622 Opinionated

Musta missed that one. Like I said, i avoided a lot of news this election. Got a link?

840 Geepers  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:12:51pm

Quilly Mammoth (#626),

Now I know Hsieh's agenda. He and his wife are dedicated Randists. Which explains why he would abandon every other principle just to attack religion.

You found it.

From:

Why Be An Atheist

Conclusion

So where does all this leave us? Well the holidays are approaching, which can be awkward for those of us not interested in praising Our Lord and Savior. We want to be thankful to our friends and family, but not to God. Hopefully, if the topic of your heresy arises, the arguments and counter-arguments that I've presented here will help you more effectively defend your disbelief. Or, you can just simply roll your eyes as those around you attribute their success this year to God's marvelous plan for them. "Yeah, right." you'll say to yourself. "it's all part of God's marvelous plan to breed bacteria."

841 Mich-again  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:13:00pm

I had an interesting on-topic discussion this weekend while up in the UP for the first weekend of rifle season. I met a buddies girlfriend who is a lifelong Yooper and doing pretty well it seems. When I was asking her what it was like going to a high school in such a small town (28 students in her class), she eventually got around to saying how she got pregnant at 16. Her son is now 23 and in his last semester in College, about to get his degree in Engineering from a University in the UP. I was kind of in awe of that and pointed out that I bet she was happy now that she kept the baby. Duh.

But how many people these days would gladly drive their 16 yo daughter to the clinic and pay for everything so that she wouldn't be "punished" with a child. Apparently from what I can read from his own words, our next President would , for one.

To me, that story might point out the best way to promote pro-life instead of doing it through polls. Invite adults whose circumstances of their birth would now make them politically "abortable" by public opinion to come out and thank their moms and their moms' families for being strong in a tough situation. And don't forget any of the young dads who stuck around to man up either.

842 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:13:21pm

re: #826 Iron Fist

I think we're seeing in the abortion debate the same kind of goals as we see in the gay marriage issue. They don't just want to live and let live, they want the State to force people to accept their beliefs. As anyone who knows me will attest, I am pretty liberal when it comes to taking human life, but the crass abortion Industry (we're talking about a billion dollar industry) I find objectionable. Frankly, I don't think the Federal Government should have any position on abortion at all. It's not a federal issue.

It is only the Courts imposition of its morality on this issue that makes this an issue in Federal politics

Well, I am basically with you- I do not care what agenda is being pushed- it the votes support it, it passes, which is why I am having trouble with the whoe CA thing with the gay marriage- are they fighting the voters? How can that be- isn't democracy supposed to be majority rules?

843 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:13:27pm

re: #787 Killgore Trout

Palin Differs With McCain on Federal Marriage Amendment
She clearly stated that she's in favor of amending the constitution to discriminate against gays. We talked about it here on LGF at the time.

This is my big sticking point with a lot of conservatives. Let them marry if they want to! IF the state agrees (and the people agree).

Amending the constitution to interfere with an individual right that states may confer, to me, is a big bad mistake.

844 Randall Gross  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:13:50pm

re: #796 Killian Bundy

The "Religious Right" didn't vocally push a single issue or do anything this election cycle.

/except get out and vote for Sarah Palin in spite of John McCain

Prop 8? Expelled?

845 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:14:13pm

re: #826 Iron Fist

Well put.

846 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:14:20pm

re: #834 logboy

OK, let's say just for argument sake that you are right. Let's kick the religious out of the GOP, the ones that never fail to vote, fill the pews on Sunday and serve in the military way out of proportion to their demographic numbers.

Try getting elected with what is left.

Good luck with that.

847 Rancher  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:14:30pm

re: #810 Wendya

Man, I really need to read that book.

848 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:14:39pm

re: #830 sleepyone


If anyone decided that Palin made a vote for McCain difficult then I say they are not honest conservatives (fiscal or social) and certainly not Republicans.

IIRC there were a number of Republican pundits that had big problems with her. Some bailed out, some held their noses.

849 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:15:20pm

re: #837 Intrepid

Nah - they're a state-wide group. I think any donations would be filtered into the main budget.

But I'm so grateful for their help! Not only do they pay for mom to be in day-care, they also send a social worker out to check on ME! To ask ME how I'm doing!

Heh, I like that! Not that my siblings aren't helpful - they try to help out on Saturdays, but there have been quite a few "missed" Saturdays - but it helps to have someone who knows what I'm going through to ask me questions about myself.

I'm even going to check on signing up at the YMCA - their facility is about 3 miles from our house, and I'm sure I'll be able to qualify for a really cheap rate, since I have no income. I could really stand to get back in shape, maybe lose a couple pounds, or maybe 40! (heh)

Stupid Alzheimer's disease...

Then what about some 20 dollar donation directly to you? You can find my email under my name if you want to talk off thread.

850 Egfrow  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:15:28pm

Thomas Jefferson's Fireside thoughts to James Madison on Property and Natural Rights: Oct 28, 1785

DEAR SIR, -- Seven o'clock, and retired to my fireside, I have determined to enter into conversation with you. This is a village of about 15,000 inhabitants when the court is not here, and 20,000 when they are, occupying a valley through which runs a brook and on each side of it a ridge of small mountains, most of which are naked rock. The King comes here, in the fall always, to hunt. His court attend him, as do also the foreign diplomatic corps; but as this is not indispensably required and my finances do not admit the expense of a continued residence here, I propose to come occasionally to attend the King's levees, returning again to Paris, distant forty miles. This being the first trip, I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place. For this purpose I shaped my course towards the highest of the mountains in sight, to the top of which was about a league.

As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could find no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands?...

851 DistantThunder  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:15:29pm

I heard Michael Steele on Fox - and he was dead on about making powerful arguments about the direction of the party. I felt very hopeful because he has such enthusiasm for the priciples of capitalism - it may be too late.

852 formercorpsman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:16:07pm

re: #678 DisturbedEma

I read through your response a couple of times.

You understood the thrust of my question, right?

853 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:17:02pm

re: #840 Geepers

And it turns out the guy is a flack for the Ayn Rand Institute

Paul Hsieh, MD, is a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Institute and a practicing physician in the south Denver metro area. He is a founding member of the Colorado group Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

Sorry, Sharmuta, but I do not think this guy qualifies as a Fiscon.

854 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:17:04pm

re: #851 DistantThunder

I heard Michael Steele on Fox - and he was dead on about making powerful arguments about the direction of the party. I felt very hopeful because he has such enthusiasm for the priciples of capitalism - it may be too late.

Ironic that a threat to our capitalist economy is driving down socialist county markets. . .well

855 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:18:09pm

re: #852 formercorpsman

I read through your response a couple of times.

You understood the thrust of my question, right?

I think so, I added commentary about whether or not your premises were sound. . .

perhaps not?

856 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:18:20pm

re: #838 Wishing

Nah, he is just going to swipe 401k's, mark my words.
Gawd help us
GOODBYE 401K

God, I wish those articles would make it clearer how unlikely that prospect is.

857 Randall Gross  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:18:42pm

My thoughts on the Gay marriage thing here.

My thoughts on the fiscal cons here.

Things that get adapted by majorities are appealing, not ugly.

That said I need to check out, I'm just asking everyone to look at their stances, and think about if they were in the other person's shoes a minute.

858 sleepyone  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:18:42pm

re: #789 Walter L. Newton

Thanks. But I did go a little crazy up thread. A little of my Brooklyn slipped out.

You know, I left the north east when I was 21, moved to Dallas, found a lot of politeness, then PC moved in, "can't we all get along," all of that.

Once in a while, I just slip back to the way we would shout out at each other from the stoop of our brownstone.

Actually, feels good too!

Dude! Being a natural born Texan who resided in Dallas for years and currently living in the north east (NYC, Boston, Maine) for the past 10 years I have found a common thread with you. Albeit the opposite path though perhaps that explains the opposite opinions! ;)

859 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:18:47pm

re: #763 Cattt

So let me see if I understand. The good doctor voted Dem because of all the social issues that were not debated. He wants greater freedom and individual rights in medicine, so he voted for the Dems, who want to completely take over health care.

What am I missing? This doesn't make sense to me.

They would have been front and center in the House race for sure, and maybe in the Senate race too.

But that doesn't justify his vote against McCain except that he probably felt the Palin nomination was going to deliver a Musgrave to the WH. If he had bothered to look at Palin's long record of governance, he'd have learned differently.

860 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:18:56pm

re: #446 shiek al beif salami

The problem is that we no longer know what the purpose of government is.

Or what the purpose of government is NOT.

861 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:19:05pm

re: #853 Quilly Mammoth

And it turns out the guy is a flack for the Ayn Rand Institute

Sorry, Sharmuta, but I do not think this guy qualifies as a Fiscon.

Where did I say he was?

862 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:19:08pm

re: #829 Wendya

It would have been helpful if he'd mentioned who he voted for and why. If he is an Objectivist, I can't imagine he'd vote for Obama.

I would bet good money the withholding who he voted for is deliberate. What he does talk about makes me think moby writ large.

863 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:19:13pm

re: #851 DistantThunder

I heard Michael Steele on Fox - and he was dead on about making powerful arguments about the direction of the party. I felt very hopeful because he has such enthusiasm for the priciples of capitalism - it may be too late.

It's never too late.

864 Ozark Mountain Daredevil  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:19:35pm

re: #848 Moe Katz

IIRC there were a number of Republican pundits that had big problems with her. Some bailed out, some held their noses.

Yes, and they sounded no different than the liberals. None of them are true conservatives. Good riddance to them all.

865 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:20:09pm

re: #853 Quilly Mammoth

And it turns out the guy is a flack for the Ayn Rand Institute

Sorry, Sharmuta, but I do not think this guy qualifies as a Fiscon.

Moby.

866 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:20:34pm

re: #864 Ozark Mountain Daredevil

Yes, and they sounded no different than the liberals. None of them are true conservatives. Good riddance to them all.

Ask not what your party can do for you, but what you can do for your party?

867 mockmook  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:20:35pm

Republican politicians rejected fisc-con, I don't think that was true of Republicans in general. And, if Dems actually adopt fisc-con then conservatism has "won." But, don't count on that; the current Dem agenda is antithetical to fisc-con.

In my experience, most so-cons want to stay out of other people's business. But they are not happy when liberal judges try to force change on the country.

So-cons and libertarians can get along, as long as they don't buy into the stereotypes that the MSM paints of each other.

868 cowbellallen  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:20:40pm

"Wall of separation between church and state" comes from the letter to the Danbury Baptists, which had to do with the sale of land from the federal government to the Danbury Baptists.

It meant that the federal government was not favoring the Baptists over other people in the sale of the land, as in saying "We're not favoring any religion, there is a separation between church and state regarding this land transaction."

I still don't understand why people choose to ignore this.

869 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:20:49pm

re: #864 Ozark Mountain Daredevil

Yes, and they sounded no different than the liberals. None of them are true conservatives. Good riddance to them all.

So David Frum is a crypto-liberal, in your view?

870 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:20:56pm

re: #851 DistantThunder

I heard Michael Steele on Fox - and he was dead on about making powerful arguments about the direction of the party. I felt very hopeful because he has such enthusiasm for the priciples of capitalism - it may be too late.

If Michael Steele becomes RNC chair it will be an excellent step in repairing some of the damage done to the GOP.

He knows that purging or expelling any faction from the party is the wrong way to go. Allowing MORE people to feel comfortable under the tent is the way to create a majority party, not the other way around.

871 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:20:58pm

re: #856 Cattt

God, I wish those articles would make it clearer how unlikely that prospect is.


It is very unlikely. It's an idea floated at a hearing by someone with no importance. If the Dems tried it the villagers would storm the castle with pitchforks. Very unlikely.

872 sleepyone  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:21:05pm

re: #848 Moe Katz

IIRC there were a number of Republican pundits that had big problems with her. Some bailed out, some held their noses.

"Republican pundits"... The bane of the conservative movement.

873 pat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:21:20pm

re: #826 Iron Fist

I think we're seeing in the abortion debate the same kind of goals as we see in the gay marriage issue. They don't just want to live and let live, they want the State to force people to accept their beliefs. As anyone who knows me will attest, I am pretty liberal when it comes to taking human life, but the crass abortion Industry (we're talking about a billion dollar industry) I find objectionable. Frankly, I don't think the Federal Government should have any position on abortion at all. It's not a federal issue.

It is only the Courts imposition of its morality on this issue that makes this an issue in Federal politics

100% with you. Because then the voters could monitor and moderate. And I think there is a consensus that some most definitely must be allowed, much more so than in the 60s as we have become more aware of child abuse, rape by drugs, devastating deformities, and female health issues,etc.

874 logboy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:21:27pm

re: #846 rawmuse

OK, let's say just for argument sake that you are right. Let's kick the religious out of the GOP, the ones that never fail to vote, fill the pews on Sunday and serve in the military way out of proportion to their demographic numbers.

Try getting elected with what is left.

Good luck with that.

Clearly you are blowing what the article said and what I said way out of proportion. But OK, lets have it your way. Lets let the religious right be as outspoken as they want to be, force religion, put abortion front and center, and then lets make a run for the presidency.

Oh wait, we already did. And we failed.

875 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:21:49pm

re: #550 Wishing

Am so sorry Intrepid..Bless you for being there for her.

re: #551 mikeymom

my heart goes out to you-went thru it with my mom- she always insisted we take her home(we had sold her home several yrs before she passed)it is a horrible disease--prayers to her and you and yours

Actually, it's a blessing that I can care for my mom. I'm the only one unmarried, the only one without kids amongst my siblings.

And, not to mention, she sacrificed for me while I was growing up, so it is my honor to help her during this time when she is not so able to help herself.

876 DistantThunder  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:21:51pm

heard on NPR from the head of Bloomberg News that the bailout is actaully 2.5 trillion - and the Fed has taken on bad debt as collaterol - But refuses to reveal what they have as collaterol - an old sneaker? a 30 million dollar property?

That "opaque" wall is creating uncertainty in the market. And Barney Farnk says their is certain information that woudln't be helpful for the public to know - as the reason for the WALL.

The infantilization of America.

877 hermit  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:22:06pm

Ahhh... Madison:

"So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."

"Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government."

878 Ozark Mountain Daredevil  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:23:08pm

re: #869 Moe Katz

So David Frum is a crypto-liberal, in your view?

LOL!

879 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:23:09pm

re: #745 funky chicken

Sorry Killgore, but that makes zero sense as well. Sarah Palin has governed as a crusader against waste and corruption, pretty much in every government job she's held. She never once tried to force social/religious conservatism on her constituents.

People who voted against her based upon her privately held religious beliefs are bigots.

I'll go a step further: I felt FAR more comfortable voting for McCain because of Sarah Palin. So did my wife, who's now a certified Palin fan -- which makes her the odd woman out as a Jewish woman in Northern California.

880 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:23:28pm

re: #877 hermit


"Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government."

Rotating title nomination.

881 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:23:48pm

re: #874 logboy

Clearly you are blowing what the article said and what I said way out of proportion. But OK, lets have it your way. Lets let the religious right be as outspoken as they want to be, force religion, put abortion front and center, and then lets make a run for the presidency.

Oh wait, we already did. And we failed.

Sir, with all due respect, we had John McCain on the ticket, not Pat Robertson or Alan Keyes.

882 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:24:19pm

re: #796 Killian Bundy

The "Religious Right" didn't vocally push a single issue or do anything this election cycle.

/except get out and vote for Sarah Palin in spite of John McCain

In spite of the man who took an enormous gamble to choose her for his running mate.

Yep, great folks, these religious righties are.

883 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:24:22pm

re: #733 cincinnati_kid37

You seem like someone who can dish it out but not take it. Then that's just an off the cuff appraisal...

You seem like a - let me think - assh**le. Oh, wait - we knew that already.

884 Mich-again  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:24:38pm

re: #854 DisturbedEma

Ironic that a threat to our capitalist economy is driving down socialist county markets. . .well

The Earth supports a population of about 6 billion people thanks to in no small part the good effects of a highly evolved global economy. I don't think many people realize how vulnerable that number is.

885 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:24:53pm
886 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:25:00pm

re: #844 Thanos

re: #796 Killian Bundy


Prop 8? Expelled?

Prop 8 won. Expelled? Wow, did anyone even see it?

/or was Ben Stein elected Pope of the "Religious Right"?

887 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:25:30pm

re: #861 Sharmuta

Where did I say he was?

I think Shar (and others) on this thread have basically tried to imply that the writer addresses some valid points. Points which it seems like a lot of others on this thread will not address.

All I have heard is; "He was never a Republican," "He's a moby'" "he's gay and trying to attract attention to the gay issues." "he's not this, he's not that" and so on and so on.

He has valid points, I don't care what color his underwear is!

888 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:25:47pm

re: #871 Killgore Trout

It is very unlikely. It's an idea floated at a hearing by someone with no importance. If the Dems tried it the villagers would storm the castle with pitchforks. Very unlikely.

And a lot of those villagers would be my customers (and co-workers). :D

889 sleepyone  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:26:11pm

Gotta go.

Charles certainly knows how to stir it up...

890 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:27:12pm

re: #887 Walter L. Newton

I don't really care what he is either. He said:

Hence, I believe the Republican Party should choose the first path - the path of limited government, separation of church and state, and protection of individual rights.

And I agree.

891 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:27:27pm

re: #826 Iron Fist

I think we're seeing in the abortion debate the same kind of goals as we see in the gay marriage issue. They don't just want to live and let live, they want the State to force people to accept their beliefs. As anyone who knows me will attest, I am pretty liberal when it comes to taking human life, but the crass abortion Industry (we're talking about a billion dollar industry) I find objectionable. Frankly, I don't think the Federal Government should have any position on abortion at all. It's not a federal issue.

It is only the Courts imposition of its morality on this issue that makes this an issue in Federal politics


yeah ... read #263

892 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:28:02pm

re: #865 FurryOldGuyJeans

Moby.

who?

893 Semi Cartman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:28:07pm

re: #802 ducktrapper

Someone has done a great job of shifting the scope of the narrative. The "religious right" support the Republican Party, ergo the GOP is scary.


A damn near thirty year old caricature that still works. It's tough to overcome this kind of bigotry; thats what it is after all, but it has to happen if we are to live anywhere else than at the margins of the political community. An 'informed electorate' won't necessarily think this way. But let any newsreader utter the phrase, and watch the 'independent voters' run and hide under their blankies until someone makes that horrible vision go away. Completely irrational and based on nothing, 'Religious Right' is still the biggest, most effective club they have.

894 Ozark Mountain Daredevil  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:28:20pm

BTW- Got gas for $1.68 a gallon today. At this rate by Jan. 19th it'll be free! Then Obama will get inaugurated on Jan. 20th, and on Jan. 21th, it'll be $3 a gallon.

895 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:28:36pm

re: #889 sleepyone

Gotta go. Charles certainly knows how to stir it up...

Watch out for those north easterners, get ya while you're sleeping LOL
/s

896 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:28:49pm

re: #559 outsidephilly

Thanks outsidephilly - I will read the dreaded Medicare blooklet and check again to see if she qualifies.

But mom owns her own home and her SS/Pension/Annuities often disqualify her from government assistance. She just doesn't draw enough to pay for an additional $200 bill to the Day Care folks!

897 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:29:00pm

re: #888 Cattt

Thanfully my poverty has prevented me from investing much in Soc Security or IRA's but I'd be storming the castle with everyone else.

898 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:29:55pm

An occasional thread like this is nice - read the posts, enjoy all the different posts, get some different angles on the issue, claw a few mice...

899 hermit  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:30:15pm

re: #880 Killgore Trout

Thanks, Killgore. Hey, I can't find my freakin political pigeon hole. You got a couch or somethin'?

900 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:30:48pm

re: #898 Cattt
claw a few mice...

rofl

901 Geepers  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:31:03pm

Iron Fist (#885),

I am the intolerant Religious Right?

Yeah, you definitely struck me as a Ned Flanders clone.

;-)

902 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:31:06pm

re: #861 Sharmuta

Where did I say he was?

Not him per se; but it seems that you are saying his article reflects what many Fiscal Conservatives are thinking and _doing_. I think showing that the guy has an agenda reinforces my thought that this "defection of the Fiscons" is more bloviation by pundits with an agenda then fact.

903 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:31:06pm
904 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:31:57pm

re: #902 Quilly Mammoth

Then you'll call that bluff?

905 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:32:18pm

You who think that your 401ks are safe amuse me. The US Gov. has a lot of experience in making bank accounts go bye bye.

906 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:32:43pm

re: #745 funky chicken

Sorry Killgore, but that makes zero sense as well. Sarah Palin has governed as a crusader against waste and corruption, pretty much in every government job she's held. She never once tried to force social/religious conservatism on her constituents.

People who voted against her based upon her privately held religious beliefs are bigots.


Go Funky! Seriously man ...

907 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:33:29pm

re: #899 hermit

I can't find my freakin political pigeon hole.


It took me a while to find my niche. Libertarians are nuts, progressives are Marxists, conservatives are creeps. I eventually discovered that I'm a Classical Liberal.. Keep searching, you'll find something that fits.

908 Mich-again  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:33:53pm

re: #868 cowbellallen

I still don't understand why people choose to ignore this.


Not exactly sure what your point is but if you are trying to prove that TJ3 wanted Christianity or any other Religion to form the basis of the US Government, you are wrong. He thought the Christians faith was kooky at best. Now before he made the "wall of separation" comment, he said this.

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
909 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:34:09pm

re: #903 Iron Fist

That's one reason the Obama Administration is so dangerous. He may wind up appointing a couple of judges, probably to replace people on the Liberal Wing of the Court. His appointees will undoubtedly be radicals like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. We need to filibuster such judges. The most lasting contribution to this country that Obama is likely to make is Judges. I hope we try to force him to make wise appointments.

And, the first time the Repubs try a filibuster, I would wait 5 seconds and then watch the Dems use the "dreaded Nuclear Option" that the Repubs could never pull the trigger on...those judges are coming if we like it or not...get ready to open up and say aahhh.

910 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:34:26pm

re: #892 Quilly Mammoth

who?

De Doktor...the bloviator of the screed.

911 jaunte  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:34:48pm

re: #897 Killgore Trout

re: #905 rawmuse

Are either of you aware of other 401k 'plans' besides Ghilarducci's? That seems to be the one getting all the publicity.

912 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:34:54pm

re: #897 Killgore Trout

Thanfully my poverty has prevented me from investing much in Soc Security or IRA's but I'd be storming the castle with everyone else.

I've personally seen only one utter panic so far, but we've had a nice little number, and it is the 401(k) issue that does it. Fortunately, only news junkies even noticed the issue - I am hoping it will just go away.

913 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:34:57pm

re: #899 hermit

You got a couch or somethin'?


My poverty, single status, cats and Zen philosophy prevent me from couch ownership.

914 Semi Cartman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:35:34pm

re: #840 Geepers

Good Work. That splains a lot.

915 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:35:49pm

re: #874 logboy

Clearly you are blowing what the article said and what I said way out of proportion. But OK, lets have it your way. Lets let the religious right be as outspoken as they want to be, force religion, put abortion front and center, and then lets make a run for the presidency.

Oh wait, we already did. And we failed.

When did that happen, exactly?

When did the Republican Party force a religious test on its own members, let alone the rest of America?

When did the Republican Party drop all other priorities and make outlawing abortion its only goal? (As opposed, for example, to the Democratic Party making opposition to all restrictions on abortion its official policy?)

And do you think the Republican Party ought to tell religious people to shut up? Do you think religious people only get to pick one of the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment -- since they chose free exercise of religion, they don't get freedom of speech too?

916 jaunte  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:35:59pm

re: #913 Killgore Trout

Don't try sitting on the lathe.

917 Fearless Fred  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:36:04pm

re: #887 Walter L. Newton

I think Shar (and others) on this thread have basically tried to imply that the writer addresses some valid points. Points which it seems like a lot of others on this thread will not address.

All I have heard is; "He was never a Republican," "He's a moby'" "he's gay and trying to attract attention to the gay issues." "he's not this, he's not that" and so on and so on.

He has valid points, I don't care what color his underwear is!

as long as they're sexy! ?

918 hermit  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:36:14pm

re: #907 Killgore Trout

oooh. nice. I'll keep reading, thanks.

919 Ozark Mountain Daredevil  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:36:18pm

re: #905 rawmuse

You who think that your 401ks are safe amuse me. The US Gov. has a lot of experience in making bank accounts go bye bye.

I'd love to know the percentage of those dolts who voted for BOzo that have 401(k)'s. And in two years ask them: "What the hell were you thinking?".

920 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:36:51pm

re: #905 rawmuse

You who think that your 401ks are safe amuse me. The US Gov. has a lot of experience in making bank accounts go bye bye.

Agree...but cmon, they will give you 3% interest!
Our income is pretty much fixed...we will be screwed.
In fact, we will probably spend it rather than let the Zero have it, if we feel it is a sure thing.

921 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:37:27pm

Yep, you people keep arguing and blaming the other side, who in all actuality is on the same side as you are.

Lizard A) Yeah...it's the religious people. those darn religious people are the problem! Prop 8...blah, blah, blah. Expelled...blah, blah, blah.

Lizard B) No, it's you fiscal conservatives...you've been the problem all along! You caused the financial meltdown...blah, blah, blah. You're in charge of Wall Street...blah, blah, blah

Uh-huh...keep it up. Keep fighting amongst yourselves. You'll see a Democrat majority for decades.

922 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:37:33pm

re: #911 jaunte


Are either of you aware of other 401k 'plans' besides Ghilarducci's? That seems to be the one getting all the publicity.

Argentina

923 formercorpsman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:38:03pm

re: #855 DisturbedEma

I think we are describing the same outcome.

Double Entendre for the abortion issue with this guy referenced in the article.

Just because the soccons stand down, does not mean the issue will go away. There is another team looking to advance the argument in their favor.

For any fiscons who did not vote because of this issue, just like it was being argued against the Republicans early on who said they could not vote for him for other reasons, the other option is a bigger government nonetheless.

Really my main argument is, for those who are mad about the soccons, and this election for reasons discussed, do they find fault with soccons who would find it objectionable to have the government cover the 4th, and 5th abortion for some women because it is part of their right to healthcare under an Obama administration?

Just because you stand down, does not mean it becomes a stalemate.

924 hermit  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:38:17pm

re: #907 Killgore Trout

but this deserves a quote...

The Fascist leader Benito Mussolini opposed classical liberalism: "Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State. It is opposed to classical Liberalism, which arose from the necessity of reacting against absolutism, and which brought its historical purpose to an end when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual."

925 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:38:29pm

Ok, time to eat the fish.
/Namaste, y'all

926 jaunte  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:38:40pm

re: #922 Killgore Trout

All kinds of fun.

927 hermit  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:39:28pm

nite Killgore! thanks

928 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:39:44pm

re: #924 hermit

That would explain Killgore's dislike for vlaams belang.

929 Desert Dog  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:40:13pm

re: #928 Sharmuta

That would explain Killgore's dislike for vlaams belang.

That and the goose stepping

930 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:40:16pm

OK, now we've already got 7 blogs (mostly LGFers, obviously, since I haven't really announced this yet) championing Victory in Iraq Day:

Blogs for Victory


I Call BS!


Macker's World


Army Wife: Rants from Ft. Livingroom


Noblesse Oblige


Psycmeister's Ice Palace!


zomblog


...it's a start! May big avalanches begin with tiny snowballs.

931 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:40:57pm

I consider myself a Classical Liberal. Have for a long time.

I hate agreeing with Killgore Trout

932 pat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:41:18pm

Bob Beckel, Panderer In Chief, after being outed for the 'whitey tape' TV imbecility which he then blamed on the GOP, has made a cogent argument why Hilllary would be a terrible Sec Of State. Because she gets on so well with China. Yeah. because China owns her. Missile tech, no arrest policy on Chinese spies, microchips, IBM, ...for a couple of million campaign dollars. All of which China can talk about in an instant.

933 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:41:53pm

re: #500 Karridine

Okay, Zomboid One, you're linked at www.ICallBS.net

We're proud to join the celebration of winning the Iraq component of the World War on Terrorism.

And you're now on the Blogroll of Honor!

934 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:42:18pm

re: #884 Mich-again

The Earth supports a population of about 6 billion people thanks to in no small part the good effects of a highly evolved global economy. I don't think many people realize how vulnerable that number is.

All we need is capitalism?

935 formercorpsman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:42:45pm

re: #901 Geepers

Yeah, definitely shopping at the Leftorium.

936 Red Ruffansore  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:43:50pm

Marvelous, the good Doctor who obviously knows an unviable tissue mass when he sees one has also prescribed death for the Gop to save it. Well good Doktor, we all hope to survive 4 years no thanks to you, you myopic single topic nitwit.

937 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:44:23pm
938 victor_yugo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:44:30pm

re: #870 DesertSage

If Michael Steele becomes RNC chair it will be an excellent step in repairing some of the damage done to the GOP.

He knows that purging or expelling any faction from the party is the wrong way to go. Allowing MORE people to feel comfortable under the tent is the way to create a majority party, not the other way around.

But what to do with the ones who do want to purge the party? Should those purge-wanters be purged themselves?

939 winston06  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:44:36pm

re: #597 Dan G.

the great thing about the United States is how religions compete in America. Just like businesses. That doesnt exist in other countries

940 Dom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:44:40pm

re: #806 Quilly Mammoth

In some alternate universe John McCain campaigned as a Religious Zealot. But not in this one.

Who said he did? The issue I think is whether the Republican party values have recently collapsed with those of the Christian right too much for other conservatives. Not specifically whether McCain represents that. Obviously worth considering if there's more truth in it than can be answered by such a glib one-liner. Incidentally I assert that this article might offend Christians, which I hope it doesn't, rather than all Republicans, because it claims that the religious right is changing the face of the party, but it deserves consideration raising as it does the matter of separation of faith and politics.

941 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:44:40pm

re: #887 Walter L. Newton

I think Shar (and others) on this thread have basically tried to imply that the writer addresses some valid points. Points which it seems like a lot of others on this thread will not address.

All I have heard is; "He was never a Republican," "He's a moby'" "he's gay and trying to attract attention to the gay issues." "he's not this, he's not that" and so on and so on.

He has valid points, I don't care what color his underwear is!

His argument that the Republican Party is in thrall to the Religious Right and ran on the principle of forcing everyone to adopt their preferred religious orthodoxy is wrong. I seem to recall that Barack Obama went to the Saddleback Church on the same night as John McCain, and tried to appeal to the same set of voters. I also seem to recall that Sarah Palin was invited by the Conference of Presidents of Jewish Organizations to address a Stop Iran rally -- and then disinvited at the insistence of Jewish Democratic organizations (to my own personal shame as a Jew). How is it that the Republicans are considered to be in thrall to intolerant religious forces, but the Democrats aren't?

942 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:44:54pm

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Gross $7,690,545 (USA) (six weeks)

Gigli
Gross $6,068,735 (USA) (three weeks)

/which was the bigger bomb?

943 tunnelrat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:44:58pm
But I didn’t vote for a single Republican in 2008. I’ve become increasingly alienated by the Republicans“ embrace of the religious ”social conservative“ agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

That has been a part of the Republican platform all along, not just during the 2008 election cycle. In fact John McCain was less of a social conservative than any Republican nominee in the last three decades. This gentleman's argument does not make sense. Suspect that he is another weak spirited RINO who got sucked up in the Obamamania which swept the nation on November 4.

944 Mich-again  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:45:18pm

re: #934 DisturbedEma

All we need is capitalism?

We are now so far removed from capitalism its hard to say what the effects of actually converting back to it would be.

945 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:45:23pm

re: #699 Outrider

I think it is an excellent post as usual and went ahead and posted it on my site.

And you are now on the constantly updated Blogroll!

Oh No, Another Conservative Blog

946 hermit  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:45:39pm

re: #924 hermit

when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people


yah know that's the one that caught me...
i prefer my own conscience and work hard every day to help some little people form their own.
gee, how do i always manage to bring it back to schooling...? hmmm...?

947 logboy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:45:48pm

re: #915 stuiec
To state it yet again, clearly you are blowing what the article said and what I said way out of proportion. And to restate what I said even earlier, this article has clearly hit a nerve with some people, the same few who are absolutely refusing to take a moment of self reflection, and maybe let the tiniest little bit of it sink in for a moment.

948 Ozark Mountain Daredevil  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:45:50pm

Just saw a commercial narrated by Gary Sinese that all Golden Corral restaurants are giving all veterans a free buffet dinner tomorrow night from 5-9pm, if you happen to live by one.

949 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:45:59pm

re: #904 Sharmuta

Then you'll call that bluff?

There are two options. Tell the Fiscons that the Religious Right can piss up a rope, in which case the Religious Right _will_ form another party. Or tell the Fiscons they need to hang in there and we'll work to balance the social position; in which case some of them might vote for Ron Paul. But the Fiscons that are really all knotted up about the social agenda already _are_ supporting some minor party.

Or saying stuff like this article says. I do not think that Dr. Hsieh has voted for a single Republican Presidential candidate in the years he claims.

Had the economy not sucked so hard I think we would have seen a different result. Most of the PA Bitter Clingers are registered Democrats. They can be won over.

950 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:46:04pm

re: #849 Walter L. Newton

Then what about some 20 dollar donation directly to you? You can find my email under my name if you want to talk off thread.

No Walter - I appreciate your kind and caring concern, but we'll be ok. Mom is doing OK financially, and she can afford a bit of extra costs for Day Care. If it gets tight, I've got three siblings who can take up the slack, as they have decent jobs.

But dang, ain't you just the epitome of a Southern gentleman? ;-)

{Walter L. Newton from Golden Colorado!}

951 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:46:08pm

re: #923 formercorpsman

I think we are describing the same outcome.

Double Entendre for the abortion issue with this guy referenced in the article.

Just because the soccons stand down, does not mean the issue will go away. There is another team looking to advance the argument in their favor.

For any fiscons who did not vote because of this issue, just like it was being argued against the Republicans early on who said they could not vote for him for other reasons, the other option is a bigger government nonetheless.

Really my main argument is, for those who are mad about the soccons, and this election for reasons discussed, do they find fault with soccons who would find it objectionable to have the government cover the 4th, and 5th abortion for some women because it is part of their right to healthcare under an Obama administration?

Just because you stand down, does not mean it becomes a stalemate.

No, I got that- my point was that the "issue" of spending was hinged on a political hot potato. . .abortion.

So many other issues with the health care socialization would be much much MUCH more unifying. . .

Like elective choice vs. wait lists and approval, and who gets what kind of service.

Sure, paying for abortions with fed tax money will keep the attention on the whole stereotype of rigid religious people. . .when what really needs to be discussed is the hegemony that the government will have in all matters social. . .and personal. Access to DNA, HIV status, STDs, and mental health records. . .why are we not discussing that. . .

Well, the BABIES of course!

952 Floral Giraffe  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:46:15pm

re: #837 Intrepid

You might benefit from reading the book "The 36 hour day". It's a FAMILY oriented guide to living with Alzheimers. It has helped me immensely.

953 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:46:38pm

Maybe it is time to stop calling ourselves Liberal/Conservative, Republican/Democrat, and start calling ourselves what we really are:

Employers of these bozos. Performance Review!

954 Fierce Guppy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:46:57pm

I'd rather the religious "social conservatives" leave the Republican Party than people who value individualism, Individual Rights and capitalism leave it; but then the GOP as always been soaked in religion. Oh, well. Tough titty. Push them under the bus, anyway.

The America that I love is not represented by the people who sailed on the Mayflower but the well reasoned men who imported Enlighnment values from England into America one hundred years later.

Tony.

955 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:47:44pm
956 zelnaga  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:48:20pm

I'm sure the Republican party also gained a few votes when they decided to embrace social conservatism.

Ultimately, I think the real question is... did the Republican party lose the election or did the Democratic party win it?

It's like... if you're playing a game and your opponent intentionally loses the game, then your victory was handed to you. Conversely, if your opponent gave it their all and they still lost... that's a victory you earned.

Did the Democratic party win because the Republican party, through poor strategy, essentially handed them victory, or did the Democratic party win because they led a very effective campaign?

Also, just for the record, I'm not proposing that the Democratic party has a good policy - the strategy you use to get elected (such as buying a 30 minute primetime TV ad) has nothing to do with the virtue of your proposed policies.

957 jcw46  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:48:37pm

Hah! MY, MY. Everyone's pointing the finger anywhere but where it belongs. No, no, it can't be that trying to pander to the center got the election lost or that McCain had some strange notion of fairness that he wouldn't name the Dems that caused the Mortgage crisis. No, it's "the religious right" yeah that's who we'll blame this time for our F**kup. They wish. If McCain lost because of the "religious right" it's because they stayed home because of HIS tepid conservative reputation not because yo-yo's like in the header was put off by Christians. This guy sounds to me like a concern troll; "I'm a staunch Republican but ..." fill in whatever you wish cause it's a lie. He wasn't going to vote for any republican. This is his way stirring the pot. There are more secularists trying to shove their viewpoint and morals down the throats of g!d believing people than the opposite and many of them do it in the name of government and with a gun backing them up.
BTW Who the heck IS the "Religious Right"? Does this mean there's an "Irreligious Right"? What pipedreams. Liberal Republicans don't get elected unless for a specialized market (i.e. Giuliani in New York). When the Republican party is at it's most conservative is when it gets elected. Look up the history.

btw: for the folks out there who were aghast that some of us still use I.E.
there's this in the news. Hah!

958 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:49:05pm

re: #949 Quilly Mammoth

Telling the fisc-cons to cool it won't work- they're already looking elsewhere. In fact, I think your entire strategy is backwards. This crack in the foundation needs repair NOW and has needed it for 12 years.

959 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:49:17pm

re: #900 Wishing

claw a few mice...

rofl

Kitteh

Kittehs

960 victor_yugo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:49:41pm

re: #953 FurryOldGuyJeans

Maybe it is time to stop calling ourselves Liberal/Conservative, Republican/Democrat, and start calling ourselves what we really are:

Employers of these bozos. Performance Review!

They're supposed to be getting a performance review every 2, 4, or 6 years. Once again, management is asleep at the switch.

961 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:49:47pm

re: #956 zelnaga

Right, but external forces and messages from the party have to also be part of that. . .not the main focus- the whole "get the houses in order" thing must come first, in order to craft the message, and get it out there.

962 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:50:52pm

re: #921 DesertSage

Yep, you people keep arguing and blaming the other side, who in all actuality is on the same side as you are.

Lizard A) Yeah...it's the religious people. those darn religious people are the problem! Prop 8...blah, blah, blah. Expelled...blah, blah, blah.

Lizard B) No, it's you fiscal conservatives...you've been the problem all along! You caused the financial meltdown...blah, blah, blah. You're in charge of Wall Street...blah, blah, blah

Uh-huh...keep it up. Keep fighting amongst yourselves. You'll see a Democrat majority for decades.

You are correct. So long as each side requires that the Party exclude and expel the other side, the Party will remain in the wilderness.

The Party needs to focus on the part of the Venn diagram where the sets intersect. People who think the presence of some other set means they themselves don't belong in the Party may in fact be right.

963 DisturbedEma  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:51:25pm

re: #962 stuiec

You are correct. So long as each side requires that the Party exclude and expel the other side, the Party will remain in the wilderness.

The Party needs to focus on the part of the Venn diagram where the sets intersect. People who think the presence of some other set means they themselves don't belong in the Party may in fact be right.

Divide and conquer. . .

964 Semi Cartman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:53:16pm

re: #924 hermit

Mussolini most clearly describes Big Government Statism, better than anyone who promotes it today, since he doesn't try to turn it into something happy and fun. When Clinton started talking about a 'Third Way', I started to inventory my ammo.

965 formercorpsman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:53:33pm

re: #951 DisturbedEma

Without a doubt. I have actually made that part of my discussions here before.

HHS is the largest government budget in the world. If Obama implements a fraction of what he promised on the campaign trail, it blows by the trillion dollar mark easily.

In your position, you are right, defacto acquiescence of your rights to the government.

With that being said, I think it is a very valid argument for someone who feels abortion is murder, to feel as if they are funding it via their taxation, they have every right to stand up and protest as such.

966 wright1  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:53:55pm

re: #279 JPL17

I Googled this guy and read his blog. He actually refers to fetuses as "a clump of cells." What a jerk.

I'd rather lose elections than pander to dopes like him. (And BTW, his last name is spelled "Hsieh", not "Tsieh.")

When I read the above article I was thinking "here we go, time to make the case for conservative principles." Then I read a lot of the posts and, well, I am proud of a lot of the replies. Most of them think this guy is a fool if not a Dem already. Notwithstanding, the so-called centrists in the Republican Party seek to have the "religious right jettisoned." Well, I am not an evangelical, but I agree with the majority of issues embraced by the proverbial "religious right". So, this article sticks in my craw. For those who want to keep abortion legal, even partial birth, and quite possibly federally funded, embryonic stem cell research accepted and federally funded, no parental notification, as well as other issues under the umbrella of culture of life issues, rather than telling us to leave or become minimized, I have a better idea, there is a place for you instead. Someone in this thread said if BHO did a passable job he would vote for him in 2012. Well, have at it. There are party headquarters waiting for you to sign up. I have said before to those who want to "win" that core principles are not negotiable. I do not check my relationship with God at the voting booth. Sorry. It does not work that way. My life is defined by God. Does that make me a fanatic? Maybe to some who the very mention of God in a sentence sends chills down their spine. But, I ask that for those that mistake fanaticism for irrationality - you are making a mistake. You need to get to know more believers. Lastly, for those who blame the "right" for this loss, you are deluding yourself. McCain is not a creature of the religious right. He is a Democrat. He is a conservative Dem, but that is what he is. Again folks, the GOP wins elections with conservatism - that is our brand and it is a brand based on our values. And, for my part, I would rather lose with my integrity intact voting for people with a moral conscience than those like BHO who actually has perhaps the worst record on abortion than any politician I can name. In the circles that I travel, that type of behavior smacks of evil.

967 Fierce Guppy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:54:00pm

jcw46, Of course there's an irreligious Right in America. Where have you been for the past forty years?

968 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:54:09pm

re: #950 Intrepid

No Walter - I appreciate your kind and caring concern, but we'll be ok. Mom is doing OK financially, and she can afford a bit of extra costs for Day Care. If it gets tight, I've got three siblings who can take up the slack, as they have decent jobs.

But dang, ain't you just the epitome of a Southern gentleman? ;-)

{Walter L. Newton from Golden Colorado!}

Ok, I'm poor as dirt myself, but I always manage to tip a few bucks to someone or something when need, and your Mom just sounded like a good choice.

Glad you still have her. I lost Mom and Dad about 5 years ago, a year and a half apart.

969 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:54:34pm

Th gay marriage canard is bogus.

/even Obama is against gay marriage

970 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:54:42pm
971 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:55:34pm

re: #940 Dom

You, and some others are missing the point. Not a single Republican Administration has seriously attacked Roe v. Wade. Some of the more egregious types of abortion they have, and those are supported by a huge amount of the electorate. In reality Bush has been a "wink and a nod" to the RR his entire presidency. He _carefully_ crafted his embryonic stem cell policy to forbid Federal Funds but not the research itself.

The Republican designed Defense of Marriage Act _does not_ restrict the rights of Gays to be married. It allows States not to accept reciprocity. There has been no serious effort to define marriage as being solely between a man and woman on teh Federal Level.

The fact is that the RR held it's nose and voted McCain. But for some reason people still believe that there is some secret Christocon HQ of Doom directing the Republican Party.

972 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:55:45pm

re: #952 Floral Giraffe

You might benefit from reading the book "The 36 hour day". It's a FAMILY oriented guide to living with Alzheimers. It has helped me immensely.

Yeah, it's on the list of books that I need to read. I also read a lot at the Alzeimer's Association Message Board, and they have lots of good resources there. Plus there are so many people there who are going through the same things I am! And worse!

973 kuchuklambat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:55:50pm

re: #930 zombie

Victory in Iraq was achieved in a few months, sealed with our 52-pick-up of rogues and fishing Saddam out of the hole.
Whatever went on after that, building a nation for Iraqi's moms and dads, the purple finger exercise, has created a strong Shia state, soon-to-be-if-not-yet a client of Iran, and facilitated extermination of Iraqi Christians, all at the expense that broke our budget. How this is in the US national interests, beats me. This V-day, if established, will feel bittersweet at best in a few years.
Was it Pyrrhus who said "one more such victory and the war is lost"? Or something like that.

974 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:56:26pm

re: #938 victor_yugo

But what to do with the ones who do want to purge the party? Should those purge-wanters be purged themselves?

The purgers need to get over it...period.

975 ggt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:56:29pm

Hello Night Lizards! It snowed today in Near Iowa.

I didn't like this article. The older I get, the more I see the nuances of the specific issues of the "religious right". When I was younger, I saw the "religious right" as my parents, the Church and other authority figures trying to tell me what to do--right vs. wrong. I rebelled against that. Now that I am older, I see why they used simple language to guide me in very complex subjects. I didn't have the
experience to understand. I still don't agree with them on all the subjects, but I don't feel I have to rebel.

I don't think the Constitution gives us freedom from religion.

So, how are you-all and what are we talking about?

976 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:56:39pm

re: #949 Quilly Mammoth

There are two options. Tell the Fiscons that the Religious Right can piss up a rope, in which case the Religious Right _will_ form another party. Or tell the Fiscons they need to hang in there and we'll work to balance the social position; in which case some of them might vote for Ron Paul. But the Fiscons that are really all knotted up about the social agenda already _are_ supporting some minor party.

Or saying stuff like this article says. I do not think that Dr. Hsieh has voted for a single Republican Presidential candidate in the years he claims.

Had the economy not sucked so hard I think we would have seen a different result. Most of the PA Bitter Clingers are registered Democrats. They can be won over.

Seriously- the fisc-cons already did this! We got a nice little tax break from Dubya, and as an added extra bonus, we got republicans spending like drunken sailors democrats. I'm telling you- the fisc-cons are pissed. They feel they've put up with enough. Continuing to disregard them is agreeing to continue electoral defeat.

977 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:57:19pm
978 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:57:36pm

The Prop 8 response cracks me up...I would have voted against it, but why ON EARTH are people in other states having rallies about the fact that voters in California voted for it?

I read that there were rallies in 3 cities in North Carolina, and heard on the radio that there was a march here in Las Vegas.

Even funnier, didn't two other states pass gay marriage bans? but the only one mentioned in all of these stupid rallies is California's prop 8.

979 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:58:04pm

re: #947 logboy

To state it yet again, clearly you are blowing what the article said and what I said way out of proportion. And to restate what I said even earlier, this article has clearly hit a nerve with some people, the same few who are absolutely refusing to take a moment of self reflection, and maybe let the tiniest little bit of it sink in for a moment.

Didn't you write this?


Yesterday I was chastised for stating that most Americans don't give a rats ass about abortion if they don't have a job, are in danger of losing their house, so on and so forth. That, and many people don't like having religion and religious values crammed down their throat.


If you did, how did you mean it? Because I didn't see any evidence in this Presidential campaign of the Religious Right's cramming its religion and its religious values down anyone's throat, at least not by using the Republican Party or ticket as its vehicle. Did you? And if so, where and when and how?

980 notutopia  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:58:07pm

re: #607 outsidephilly

Night All!

981 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:58:19pm

re: #958 Sharmuta

Telling the fisc-cons to cool it won't work- they're already looking elsewhere. In fact, I think your entire strategy is backwards. This crack in the foundation needs repair NOW and has needed it for 12 years.

How can we make a party of "sofiscon"? Or a "fissocon"?

We have to identify the most important points. That might take a bit of shaking in the socon world. But hey, Sarah Palin did it! Why can't we do it nationally?

982 nightwatch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:58:34pm

Well ,Just got off my shift in an E.R working with 99.9% Card carrin Lib/Soc/MARX/COMMs DOCS, and let me tell you all, this boy is a plant
for what? (Games afoot, damn they didn't even wait until after 01-21)

You have no idea what we are in for.

Fires all around tonight.

983 swamprat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:58:51pm

1 The abortion issue should be resolved by a national referendum, or on a state-to-basis...the controversy will continue because all of the United States had a legal decision rammed down its throat

2 The religious rights' stance on abortion is incorrect in my view; an all-knowing, infinitely kind god would welcome any and all aborted fetuses into his arms. Their "death" would not end any life, just as any other innocent would face an eternal reward, if such exists.

3 I also find the atheists take on abortion puzzling; If there is no god, or afterlife, then every life should be infinitely priceless, and infinitely protected.


It would then appear, based on their actions and statements, that the religious types who oppose abortion, doubt the abilities and intentions of their deity...and the atheists either don't care, or haven't delved into the ramifications of their (un)belief system...

It looks as if both sides have not stopped to think about what they actually believe, but rather than think for themselves, simply adopt the position that they are told their side has chosen.

lotta emotion, lotta yelling

984 ggt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:58:51pm

re: #972 Intrepid

The 36 Hour Day is an EXCELLENT book. You'll read thru it in a day. It isn't a drudge to read, more of a reference tool.

985 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:59:06pm

re: #958 Sharmuta

Telling the fisc-cons to cool it won't work- they're already looking elsewhere. In fact, I think your entire strategy is backwards. This crack in the foundation needs repair NOW and has needed it for 12 years.

So are you saying the Republican Party should tell the RR to take a hike? Support Gay Marriage, drop all support of Right to Life and so on? Become Rockefeller Republicans?

986 Carolyn  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 8:59:09pm

What happened to Little Green Footballs?
I now see the term "bible thumper" here.
There was a time when THAT poster would have gotten the stick.
Just very sad.

987 whitehatguy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:00:39pm

I smell a stinky red herring here.
Let's see, dear Dr. voted for G.W. and his known "religious right" social conservative views twice but could not bring himself to vote for the moderate McCain who if elected would have been boxed in at every turn
by the Dems if trying to implement a social conservative agenda. Riiight.
I smell an ACLU lover using a pretty lousy disguise. Any half wit knows that the most the Supremes could do is throw the abortion issue back to the states, and NOT ban abortion. And what's up with the statement,
"But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion". ?
Obviously your implication Dr. dear. You conveniently forgot to include the part of gov not prohibiting the free exercise of
Sorry, but your exceedingly high wall of separation doesn't sell well among main stream America. Contact Putin though. It sells very well there I hear among the controlling elite.

The cultural battle is here. Bring it on!

988 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:00:40pm

re: #911 jaunte

re: #905 rawmuse

Are either of you aware of other 401k 'plans' besides Ghilarducci's? That seems to be the one getting all the publicity.

I don't think anyone else has been idiotic enough to have anything approaching this idiotic "idea."

If anyone has heard of any others, I'd be interested to see them.

Just a thought - right now, I'm just waiting for December, when thousands of people who are down 30 percent or more in a mutual fund get paid a capital gain. This will not be fun to explain to them.

989 ggt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:01:00pm

So, we are allowed to discuss Abortion on this thread?

990 swamprat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:01:07pm

re: #899 hermit

devout hedonist

991 Dom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:01:16pm

re: #971 Quilly Mammoth

That was a pretty good response.

992 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:01:23pm

re: #976 Sharmuta

The Log Cabin agrees with you on less Soc-Con pandering, Sharm.

993 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:01:38pm

re: #969 Killian Bundy

Th gay marriage canard is bogus.

/even Obama is against gay marriage

He still managed to straddle the line by stating he was against same sex marriage but against Proposition 8. Might as well vote "Present."

994 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:01:48pm

Well good evening all y'all - sorry to be tardy in getting here and I've only had to scan a few comments to understand what's going on.
See this guy voted for Obama - or at best stayed home and didn't vote for McCain - because of the influence of the Religious Right on Republican politics.
I understand and respect that position.
However, he either voted for or allowed Obama to win this election (and no, don't be stupid, I don't mean his one vote) so that we could reward someone (Obama) who, being the first presidential candidate FROM EITHER PARTY IN OVER 20 YEARS to NOT take public financing and who BOUGHT this election. And make no mistake about it, it would have been hard for ANY Repubican to win in this year of terrible economics (never mind that the Dem's were responsible for the economic meltdown - they control Congress and Congress controls the nations purse-strings) and MSM so in the tank for Obama that it was actually embarrassing to see - and yes that most definitely includes Fox News.
So the good doctor voted (or didn't vote at all) for the Democrat because of his single issue problem: Abortion or the Religious Right. And he took Rush Limbaugh's advice - as if Rush Limbaugh speaks for the Republican Party.
And so now we have a President elect who will most definitely allow abortions - federally paid for - and in fact may have already have tolerated the concept of terminating a baby's life after it was born; who very much believes in Socialism and of whom I am still wary of the way he feels about America itself - I don't think Obama respects or likes America very much more than does his wife.
So how come the good doctor voted for W in 2000 and 2004? As much as I disrespect Gore's intellect and Kerry's (did you know I served in Vietnam) integrity, he still voted for Bush, even though the Religious Right sided with Bush in both elections.
I am, to put it very mildly indeed, suspect of the doctors stated reasons for not voting Republican.
This is NOT to say Republicans don't need to change and it may very well be that a part of that change will be dramatically less influence on the part of the Religious Right, but I still wouldn't want the good doctor to vote Republican. Liberal Democratic Elites are single issue voters on abortion - a woman has an absolute right to have an abortion and if you don't adhere to this principal you are not one of "theirs". Well anyone who would let Obama buy this election, accept the chosen candidate of a truly morally bankrupt and intellectually deficient MSM, because of the impact of the Religious Right (such as it is; I've read in several places that part of the reason McCain lost by so much was because the Religious Right and Conservatives didn't vote for him) is not someone I want to support my political party.
This year, of all years, was NOT the year to be a single issue voter. The War on Terror is very real, Islamic Jihad wants to take away ALL of the rights granted to us by our Founding Fathers, the economy is in severe meltdown, and Obama was the single least qualified and least experienced candidate for President in my 63 year lifetime.

995 victor_yugo  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:02:21pm

re: #957 jcw46

btw: for the folks out there who were aghast that some of us still use I.E.
there's this in the news. Hah!

Okay, that's three upgrades for Firefox since, what, June? And how many security holes have IE users had to patch in that 5-month period, all because of a little "extension" called ActiveX? The SANS @Risk bulletin from a week and a half ago included no fewer than 7 ActiveX-based vulnerabilities.

996 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:02:33pm
997 ggt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:03:01pm

Hey RW! How ya' doin' tontie?

answer quick, 'cause I have an early morning tomorrow. LOL

998 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:03:16pm

re: #978 funky chicken

*SNIP*

Even funnier, didn't two other states pass gay marriage bans? but the only one mentioned in all of these stupid rallies is California's prop 8.

California is a bellwether for all the progressive societal changes not forced on us by judicial fiat.

999 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:03:17pm

re: #986 Carolyn

What happened to Little Green Footballs?
I now see the term "bible thumper" here.
There was a time when THAT poster would have gotten the stick.
Just very sad.

I said "bible pounder" and I apologized for it. And who ever got whacked for saying "bible thumpers?"

1000 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:03:21pm

re: #981 Intrepid

I've said it before- fiscal restraint, individual rights, and government transparency. If this is the foundation of your political though, then everything flows from there... Honestly- I thought these were things on which all conservatives agreed.

There is a path already before us- it's been effective before. All we have to do is follow it.

1001 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:03:30pm

re: #976 Sharmuta

Seriously- the fisc-cons already did this! We got a nice little tax break from Dubya, and as an added extra bonus, we got republicans spending like drunken sailors democrats. I'm telling you- the fisc-cons are pissed. They feel they've put up with enough. Continuing to disregard them is agreeing to continue electoral defeat.

OK. That's a whole different set of ideas. Clearly the Republican Party has to become death on out of control spending. I think that would get wide support across the spectrum. But that has nothing to do with anything the Doctor said in his screed, or on the tension between the wings of the Republican Party on Social issues.

1002 Promethea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:03:50pm

re: #50 nbenhaim

this guy really an idiot. so based on these social conservative issues, and based on the pandering to the "religious right", you have chosen to give the most powerful job on Earth to a very liberal man with whom you disagree with on everything *except* social issues. As Prager says, this guy is a narcissist - "Since the party does not agree with me on every issue I will make the country worse. Take that, America. I am a little selfish baby"

And I keep going back to this totally ridiculous notion that it was the social conservatism that lost us the election. May I remind people for the thousandth time that California, a VERY BLUE state voted to ban gay marriage, and have it written in the constitution! And regarding stem cell research - isn't it just a ban on *federal* funding? correct me if I'm wrong. Also, GW Bush is a social conservative and has he done anything to ban abortion? Can people get over this?

Moral of the story is that thanks to narcissists like Paul Tsieh, we lost the election. So now, Paul, you'll get your abortion rights, and gay marriage, and stem cell research. But you'll also get increased war, less peace, the fairness doctrine, more crazy government bailouts, higher taxes, more money to the peace corps, a slick new government web site (WEB 2.0 DEWDSY!), worthless GREEN ENERGY jobs, NO MORE nuclear plants, no more missile defense program, ...should I keep going?

now i feel better.

Well said. More people should understand that NO party or candidate will support ALL their issues. After 9-11, I made a break with my entire social circle when I realized that my #1 priority was the preservation of the United States as we know her today. All other issues became second, third, etc.

The Democrats acted like traitors, hamstringing President Bush at every turn. Hence my move to the Republican side of the ticket. I also came to dislike the gay marriage bandwagon, not because I don't support gay couples, but because I came to realize that one must draw a line in the sand regarding social issues. It's, as some LGFer said, a "branding issue." What does the word "marriage" mean anyway? Ditto the cause of abortion. I see that the pro-abortionists are not willing to pursue their agenda through the legislatures. They want to get directly to "go" via the courts. I don't like that.

"States rights" used to mean "anti-black people." Now it means preservation of the federal system in an era of creeping socialism. I believe that socialism is a lousy system of government--with some exceptions, like social security, child labor laws, and other stuff (won't go into here).

So I pick my issues: #1 is national security. #2 is pro-democracy. #3 is limited government--federal, state, and local.

1003 Fierce Guppy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:04:27pm

re: #986 Carolyn You're confusing "Bible thumper" with "Bible basher". Bible thumpers are preachers. Bible bashers are people like me in my younger days. I am more of a Koran basher, now.

Tony.

1004 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:05:21pm

re: #985 Quilly Mammoth

So are you saying the Republican Party should tell the RR to take a hike? Support Gay Marriage, drop all support of Right to Life and so on? Become Rockefeller Republicans?

What part of Goldwater republicanism shoves more government on you? And quit with the strawman argument- I didn't say anyone had to leave.

1005 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:05:54pm

Let's all form a circular firing squad and get it over with already.

1006 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:06:02pm

re: #1000 Sharmuta

I've said it before- fiscal restraint, individual rights, and government transparency. If this is the foundation of your political though, then everything flows from there... Honestly- I thought these were things on which all conservatives agreed.

There is a path already before us- it's been effective before. All we have to do is follow it.

Very good.

/now tell me where social issues were even on the radar screen this Presidential election cycle?

1007 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:06:08pm
1008 Racer X  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:06:27pm

Don't blame me, I voted McCain / Palin

- my bumpersticker in two years, when the fit has really hit the shan.

1009 Dom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:06:38pm

re: #986 Carolyn

What happened to Little Green Footballs?
I now see the term "bible thumper" here.
There was a time when THAT poster would have gotten the stick.
Just very sad.

And there was a time when that poster would not have gotten the stick.

1010 swamprat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:06:42pm

re: #996 Iron Fist

Just doing what I can. I guess the hard liquor helped my wholesome look. And you should see my tats now. I've decided to sleeve both arms. It's gonna be cool.

:-)

try before you buy...good for halloween, also

1011 Carolyn  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:07:16pm

re: #999 Walter L. Newton

I said "bible pounder" and I apologized for it. And who ever got whacked for saying "bible thumpers?"

Maybe no one got banned for using "bible thumper", but in 2001 & 2002 there was a certain respect for the Judeo-Christian faith here. Now, there is an air of hostility towards faith.
Outright insults were discouraged.

1012 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:07:19pm

re: #1001 Quilly Mammoth

You mean you don't care how republicans spend money? You're a republican strictly because of gay marriage and abortion?

1013 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:07:22pm

re: #978 funky chicken

The Prop 8 response cracks me up...I would have voted against it, but why ON EARTH are people in other states having rallies about the fact that voters in California voted for it?

I read that there were rallies in 3 cities in North Carolina, and heard on the radio that there was a march here in Las Vegas.

Even funnier, didn't two other states pass gay marriage bans? but the only one mentioned in all of these stupid rallies is California's prop 8.


There are at least two reasons why I believe there's a big stink post Prop 8. One, many thought a very liberal, loony California would vote it down, no problem. The second point is State Supreme Court judges had already decreed same sex marriage legal, so the passage of Prop 8 was seen as a revocation of legal civil rights.

1014 ggt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:08:27pm

re: #1013 solomonpanting

The tyrannical minority didn't get what they wanted?

/sucks for them.

1015 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:08:35pm

re: #997 ggt
I'm doing fine ggt - how are you doing?

1016 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:08:45pm

re: #973 kuchuklambat

Victory in Iraq was achieved in a few months, sealed with our 52-pick-up of rogues and fishing Saddam out of the hole.
Whatever went on after that, building a nation for Iraqi's moms and dads, the purple finger exercise, has created a strong Shia state, soon-to-be-if-not-yet a client of Iran, and facilitated extermination of Iraqi Christians, all at the expense that broke our budget. How this is in the US national interests, beats me. This V-day, if established, will feel bittersweet at best in a few years.
Was it Pyrrhus who said "one more such victory and the war is lost"? Or something like that.

I agree with your first sentence: we won the war in a matter of months. But even then, it was never announced, no one was ever congratulated. Better now than never.

As for the rest -- sounds like you're repeating some Kos talking points.

1017 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:08:54pm

re: #968 Walter L. Newton

Ok, I'm poor as dirt myself, but I always manage to tip a few bucks to someone or something when need, and your Mom just sounded like a good choice.

Glad you still have her. I lost Mom and Dad about 5 years ago, a year and a half apart.

Oh Walter - I'm so sorry about your mom and dad! What an awful thing to lose them so close together! Do you have any brothers or sisters to share your loss with?

My folks grew up poor as dirt also during the depression. Mom was one of nine siblings who grew up in the mountains of East Tennessee. They basically ate what they grew on the farm. I reckon that's the reason why Mom, to this day, doesn't want to throw any amount of food out, no matter how small the left over is.

We were poor growing up, but we really didn't know it. We had everything we needed, but there wasn't a lot for extras. But we didn't care - we had our imaginations, and that was fine with us!

I wrote all that just to let you know that "poor" is a state of mind. You have your work there in the theater, and you make a living in it. Are you happy? If so, I'd hazard a guess that you aren't "poor" - you're just currently "lacking in funds".

Plus, there's always Maisey! :-)

1018 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:09:17pm

re: #1002 Promethea
So I pick my issues: #1 is national security. #2 is pro-democracy. #3 is limited government--federal, state, and local./em>

So well said, Thank you! No party SHOULD support/oppose all the issues, as you stated: states' rights come into play, and these issues should not be dragged on to the national political stage, but be directed to the home states for determination.

1019 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:09:17pm

re: #988 Cattt

I don't think anyone else has been idiotic enough to have anything approaching this idiotic "idea."

If anyone has heard of any others, I'd be interested to see them.

Just a thought - right now, I'm just waiting for December, when thousands of people who are down 30 percent or more in a mutual fund get paid a capital gain. This will not be fun to explain to them.

The idea of "borrowing" from 401ks is already being hotly discussed. It is no secret. And where will the opposition to this absurd idea emerge? The GOP? The one in a veto proof minority?
All money belongs to the Federal Reserve. Take out a dollar bill and read it.
It is fiat money, only backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the USA.
And that is a rare commodity indeed these days.

1020 Carolyn  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:09:51pm

Oh, and Walter it wasn't your comment I was speaking of, it was far up-thread.

1021 ggt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:10:04pm

re: #1015 realwest

hangin' in there, thanks for asking.

It's getting darker earlier, and earlier --by 5pm now. It's getting colder every day. I should be hating it, but the little kid in me knows that it means Christmas is coming!

LOL

1022 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:10:16pm

re: #976 Sharmuta

Seriously- the fisc-cons already did this! We got a nice little tax break from Dubya, and as an added extra bonus, we got republicans spending like drunken sailors democrats. I'm telling you- the fisc-cons are pissed. They feel they've put up with enough. Continuing to disregard them is agreeing to continue electoral defeat.

Sharmuta, your argument breaks down on the fact that McCain has been a crusader against fiscal irresponsibility his whole career. He opposed the medicare prescription drug entitlement. He opposed the ethanol boondoggle. He took over Goldwater's annual listing of all the ridiculous programs that get funded every year. He nuked the assinine Bush admin program to lease 767 based tankers from Boeing (correctly).

He voted for the idiotic 700 billion perks for Paulson's buddies plan because he believed Bush and his administration when they told him it was required to stave off a repeat Great Depression...I wish he had opposed it and voted against it.

BUT he did go back to DC and use his clout to get the house GOP conservatives a seat at the table. Before McCain did that, it was all Paulson, Pelosi, and Reid.

McCain would have been a HUGE improvement over Bush in terms of fiscal conservatism. Any fiscal cons who sat this election out are equally as dumb as social cons/pro-lifers who did the same.

1023 Fibonacci  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:11:00pm

It does not appear that the Doc used the concept of triage or constrained optimization to arrive at his choice. No ticket is perfect but to weigh so heavily one issue at the expense of all others seems more like an emotional response that a logical one. He must have bought into the "Palin is a Jesus freak and wants to convert you" meme.

1024 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:11:14pm

re: #1000 Sharmuta
Quick question for you: who do you think would better
deliver fiscal restraint, individual rights, and government transparency, Obama or McCain?

1025 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:11:15pm

re: #1022 funky chicken

But voting FOR the bailout is what turned off one of the fisc-cons I know.

1026 ggt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:12:57pm

I do think that many people (irrationally) fear a medieval Christian crusade coming from the Republican Party. It's the Party's fault for letting this meme pervade the public thought.

We need a strong multi-party (or at least two party) system.

1027 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:13:04pm

re: #1024 realwest

I voted for McCain, realwest.

Deny it all you guys want- the proof is in the pudding.

1028 logboy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:13:47pm

This HAS to be a record. Over 1,000 posts and we're still on topic!

1029 ggt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:14:11pm

re: #1028 logboy

WOW!

1030 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:14:17pm

re: #1001 Quilly Mammoth
I'm sorry Quilly Mammoth, but in every year of W's presidency the Democrats voted for MORE government spending than was proposed by W. And that horribly high spending by Bush included fighting two wars, and dealing with the aftermath of Katrina and Ike or whatever the hell the name of the hurricane was that pounded the gulf coast this year.
It's a naturaly reflexive action for Dems: got a problem, throw more money at it.

1031 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:15:04pm

re: #1017 Intrepid

Oh Walter - I'm so sorry about your mom and dad! What an awful thing to lose them so close together! Do you have any brothers or sisters to share your loss with?

My folks grew up poor as dirt also during the depression. Mom was one of nine siblings who grew up in the mountains of East Tennessee. They basically ate what they grew on the farm. I reckon that's the reason why Mom, to this day, doesn't want to throw any amount of food out, no matter how small the left over is.

We were poor growing up, but we really didn't know it. We had everything we needed, but there wasn't a lot for extras. But we didn't care - we had our imaginations, and that was fine with us!

I wrote all that just to let you know that "poor" is a state of mind. You have your work there in the theater, and you make a living in it. Are you happy? If so, I'd hazard a guess that you aren't "poor" - you're just currently "lacking in funds".

Plus, there's always Maisey! :-)

Thanks. I'm fine. I use terms like "poor as dirt" almost as a badge now a days. I like to use it to whack liberals over the head, especially when they are whining about getting all those handouts they always want. I scares them to hear me tell them how if they got off their lazy asses, they wouldn't have to ask the government for something all the time.

And yes, I'm happier than I have been in many years. And you're right, I always have my parrot Maisey. If I run out of food, it's always South American Red-Lored Amazon Parrot BBQ!

1032 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:15:20pm

re: #1012 Sharmuta

You mean you don't care how republicans spend money? You're a republican strictly because of gay marriage and abortion?

No, that isn't what I said. I'm not a Republican, either ;). I agree that Fiscal Conservatism has to be the foundation of a resurgent Republican Party. It's been confusing about the point you are trying to make given the premise of Charles' post. Things like the No Child Left Behind and the rest of the massive spending is depressing to virtually every conservative and Republican I know regardless of social agenda.

Fiscal Conservatives _will_ leave the party if spending is not strongly addressed. Social Agenda not so much.

I hope that's clearer.

1033 MrSnuggles  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:15:29pm

re: #874 logboy

Clearly you are blowing what the article said and what I said way out of proportion. But OK, lets have it your way. Lets let the religious right be as outspoken as they want to be, force religion, put abortion front and center, and then lets make a run for the presidency.

Oh wait, we already did. And we failed.

Ummm, maybe I missed something but we absolutely positively DID NOT do that. When the "religious right" was most outspoken and abortion and gay marriage were issues WE WON (Bushx2)! When they are not issues and the issue is the economy and the republicans are a lukewarm version of the dems WE LOSE!

1034 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:15:35pm

re: #989 ggt

So, we are allowed to discuss Abortion on this thread?

If we aren't, a lot of people are in biggg trouble.

I think we can discuss it and have been, since it is part of the issues raised in the article. It's also come up a lot during the campaign.

My thoughts - I am pro-life, and like Mayor Giuliani, who is also pro-life, I'd like to see education and alternative choices given proactively, so that people are aware, before they become sexually active, of their choices. Used to call this family planning. More emphasis on prevention, for those who are sexually active and do not want to have a child. In other words - give people broader education so that they can make choices that make abortion unnecessary. This will save many people from heartache in the future, and it will also save them unnecessary medical procedures.

One time, a friend and I were talking, and she told me - kind of suddenlly - that she had had an abortion. I was floored - I sat stunned, trying to approach the issue gently. She blurted out something like "you hate me!" Keep in mind we had NEVER discussed the issue at all.

I said, after a pause - "that must have been very hard for you." She burst into tears, but relaxed a bit - I was not going to condemn her or damn her or anything. We talked about the trauma, her situation, and how dreadful the burden of having had the abortion was for her. I tried to make a difference to the person I was in the room with - and I think she did feel better - she needed to vent her feelings on an issue she had kept in the closet. I am not going to condemn a person like this - I am going to try to help the person any way I can to come to terms with their feelings, when they give me the opportunity to do so (I would NEVER have broached such an issue with her, even if I'd known she had had an abortion prior to this conversation).

1035 joan  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:15:52pm

"...Instead, the government’s role is to protect each person’s right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others."

I disagree. Freedom of religious is not confined to private, individual expression, it is is as entitled to influence of policy as any other philosophic or ethical system believed and practiced by individuals,. Participating in the political process is influence, it is not forcing religion onto people. Are utilitarians, socialists, agnostics forcing their individual belief systems onto the country by seeking to influence law and government?

There shall be no establishment of religion by the state. No Church of England, no compulsory Catholicism, a guarantee of freedom of religious conscience in religious doctrines and practice for individuals. That is all it means, the wall of separation is a metaphor, not an article in the constitution. Religious conscience, just as humanistic conscience or scientific ethics have every right to a voice in public policy.

Republican Party will certainly dump social conservatism as a key tenet--the battle for the culture is lost. I agree and consent that the focus is to preserve the Constitution and the liberties bequeathed to us. The outcry against the cultural rot that social conservatives are now to be hounded over will not cease, but perhaps the Republicans can gain popularity and win votes when the moderates, the independents, the slightly liberal, begin to see the results of Democratic despotism.

Or not. After all, Esau sold his birthright for bowl of lentil stew.

Heh. Think of it as literature, it'll hurt less...
/snark

1036 apb1  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:16:02pm

re: #1030 realwest

Good evening, RW -

Surely no one can forget the 25% pork bonuses the Dhims tacked on the war approriations? Quintessential political blackmail, and it stinks.

1037 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:16:29pm

re: #958 Sharmuta

Telling the fisc-cons to cool it won't work- they're already looking elsewhere. In fact, I think your entire strategy is backwards. This crack in the foundation needs repair NOW and has needed it for 12 years.

What strategy do you propose for repairing the crack? What makes you feel that alienation from the Republican Party?

Am I right in assuming that you object to the Republican Party making opposition to abortion its official position? Would you be satisfied to be in a Republican Party that was mute on abortion, or would you require the Party to take a pro-choice position?

Or do you feel like the only Party activists whom you encounter are bent on evangelizing you as much as on advocating for the Party's political interests?

1038 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:18:10pm

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting this. Throughout the entire campaign the "Religious Right" (whatever that is) doesn't utter a peep in the public discourse regarding religious or social issues, yet gets out their vote on election day.

/and now, after the fact, the disaster of 2008 is suddenly their fault?

1039 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:18:26pm

re: #1032 Quilly Mammoth

No, that isn't what I said. I'm not a Republican, either ;). I agree that Fiscal Conservatism has to be the foundation of a resurgent Republican Party. It's been confusing about the point you are trying to make given the premise of Charles' post. Things like the No Child Left Behind and the rest of the massive spending is depressing to virtually every conservative and Republican I know regardless of social agenda.

Fiscal Conservatives _will_ leave the party if spending is not strongly addressed. Social Agenda not so much.

I hope that's clearer.

I don't find them confusing- I think they go hand in hand. But it is clearer- thank you. And I would add that fisc-cons will not only leave- they already are.

1040 Quilly Mammoth  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:18:38pm

re: #1030 realwest

It's called the Veto Pen, Dubya often forgot where he keeps it. Soem of that was because of the weak leadership in the party, though.

1041 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:18:47pm

Frankly, I hope there is a 2012 election to work toward. I think some of us are whistling past the graveyard.

Our republic dangles by a thread. It could collapse like a paper cup tomorrow, for all we know. I pray not, but the way things are headed, and with events of every day eclipsing the ones of the previous, I for one am not terribly optimistic. All it would take would be for some Soros style financial shenanigans, and for our creditors to quit lending us money. Half of the states have fiscal deficits. Our Fed is trillions in the hole.

Watch for the whole thing go poof if and when the paychecks from the State stop coming.

Then things will really get interesting.

1042 Racer X  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:19:00pm

To those of you who voted for someone other than McCain or did not vote at all: You fucked us all. You empowered the left and gave the the most important job in the word to a shadowy leftist.

Nice "statement" vote.

McCain was no conservative. He was not aligned with the religious right. He is a middle of the road guy; he's a bit creepy and can be a cranky old bastard. Just exactly what the country needed right now. He intimidates our enemies.

Obama is red meat to our enemies.

1043 kynna  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:19:15pm

I'm late to the party but just $.02+:

1. Embryonic Stem Cell research is a moot point. Some brilliant researchers have discovered ways to create the same kinds of cells without destroying a single viable embryo. I wonder how urgent that research would have been without those evil Christianists (and Jewishanists and Islamanists and Buddhistanists etc...) making an evil ugly stink about destruction of viable life for what had so far been rather unpromising research in practice.

Score one for the 'ists'. If this guy is still ticked about that, he's a disappointed investor, not a man of science.

2. I might be wrong, but I don't see the Republicans pushing an abortion banning agenda. I see some effort toward parental notification and a short waiting period after said notification but that seems incredibly reasonable when a professional can't even give my kid a Tums without my consent.

3. As far as banning gay marriage goes, both sides are behaving badly. The gay community for trying to go around appropriate procedure (and setting dangerous precedents) and those who are pulling government even further into marriage where it never belonged in the first place.

The Republicans lost not because of this guy's whiney complaints about social conservatism (which really didn't show itself on the ballot this year outside of gay marriage). They lost because they abandoned limited government and jumped on board the bailout which expanded government. That and a healthy campaign for Obama from the media which made for a lot of ignorant voters.

Frankly, I find it bizarre that Bill Clinton prayed publicly at the drop of a hat, posed numerous times outside his church with an 80lb bible in hand and never took the flak that George W. Bush, a humble Christian if ever I've seen one, took for being religious. If a Republican says anything about God they get tarred as 'Religious Right' and called crazy. Dems get away with it because their followers assume they're lying. It's gross.

The incidents of Creationism being pushed by some Republicans are disturbing but are few and certainly don't define the party. They can be dealt with on a case by case basis, where a pol has been potentially mislead.

Those of us who want Republicans to win can help by not slamming people's beliefs every step of the way. We can work toward harmony in the Big Tent party. The dems keep telling us religion made us lose. I say that's stupid.

Case in point: Sarah Palin gets a blessing in church and a visiting pastor says something about witch craft. It's all of 10 seconds. She accepts the blessing and moves along. Suddenly she's a believer in witch craft.

Obama sits in a racist, conspiracy theorist church for 20 years and there's absolutely not connection -- in fact the mention of the issue is considered racist and subsequently forbidden by the Republican candidate.

And I'm supposed to shun my own religious beliefs because these people say it's turning them off? Yeah right.

1044 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:19:37pm

re: #1008 Racer X

Don't blame me, I voted McCain / Palin

- my bumpersticker in two years, when the fit has really hit the shan.

Mine's going to say, "Don't blame me, I voted for her."

1045 Noam Chumpski  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:19:50pm

With all due respect, this is a really dumb post.

1. ban abortion - don't remember that being on the McCain website, nor tried over the past 8 years. Leftist scare tactic.

2. embryonic stem cell research - a total failure and leftist myth. Try adult stem cells?

3. gay marriage - seriously? wtf. IT WAS DEMOCRATS IN CA THAT REJECTED GAY MARRIAGE... you little stupid... check the votes for Obama and cross that with votes for Prop 8. Without dems we'd have gay marriage; or whatever they want to call it next.

This guy is faking and I'm a little sick of this type of bullshit masquerading as thought, but hey, I get it already...

1046 Promethea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:20:04pm

re: #73 zombie

I wrote you a fan letter, but I didn't answer your question. Yes, your idea is worth pursuing just so we keep the pressure on Obama to recognize the efforts of the U.S. military and the role of President Bush in helping to destroy an insane dictator and bring democracy to a Muslim country.

It's sick how the MSM and the Democrats have united to pervert the American spirit and its role in bettering the lives of millions, maybe billions, of people. The more I think about these mental perverts, the angrier I get. Zombie, you are one of my heroes. Please keep doing what you do. Thanks!

1047 wright1  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:20:42pm

re: #1034 Cattt

Giuliani is not pro-life, I wish was, but he is not.

1048 kuchuklambat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:20:48pm

re: #1016 zombie

I don't read Daily Ko's and I was not aware of their admission a) that we were right to take Saddam out, b) that there is a wider assault on our nation and values by the global jihad, and c) that weakening Dar al-Islam and strengthening free nations' defensive (and hence economic) abilities is paramount in our foreign policy considerations, even if it conflicts with our sense of short-term compassion to "regular moms and dads" in the land of the Submission cult.
Also didn't hear the Kos giving much of a hoot about Iraqi Christians.

1049 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:21:31pm

re: #1027 Sharmuta
"Deny it all you guys want- the proof is in the pudding."
Meaning? That the Dems were more for fiscal restraint, individual rights, and government transparency? That Dems are for smaller government? Or, are the Dems in favor of, as the good doctor put it: "Instead, the government’s role is to protect each person’s right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others."?

1050 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:21:32pm

re: #1038 Killian Bundy

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting this. Throughout the entire campaign the "Religious Right" (whatever that is) doesn't utter a peep in the public discourse regarding religious or social issues, yet gets out their vote on election day.

/and now, after the fact, the disaster of 2008 is suddenly their fault?

Why point fingers and blame the people really responsible for failure when you can pillory those already demonized by the winners. Less work that way.

1051 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:21:56pm

re: #1031 Walter L. Newton

Thanks. I'm fine. I use terms like "poor as dirt" almost as a badge now a days. I like to use it to whack liberals over the head, especially when they are whining about getting all those handouts they always want. I scares them to hear me tell them how if they got off their lazy asses, they wouldn't have to ask the government for something all the time.

And yes, I'm happier than I have been in many years. And you're right, I always have my parrot Maisey. If I run out of food, it's always South American Red-Lored Amazon Parrot BBQ!

Heh - from what you've written about Maisey, she'd kick your ass if you tried to barbeque her!

/heh - I laughed out loud when I read your earlier post about how she ambled about and bit your former girlfriend's toe! What a character!

1052 wolfie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:22:35pm

Late to the thread, so it's probably been said several times before:

The doctor is simply responding to the MSM's and Hollyharvard elite's constant propaganda about the bitter and clingy masses. He is not concerned about ideological purity, much less about ideas. He is merely terrified of having his friends and neighbors think he is unfashionable.

1053 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:24:02pm

re: #1037 stuiec

What strategy do you propose for repairing the crack? What makes you feel that alienation from the Republican Party?

Return to fiscal sanity- is that easy enough? What makes me feel alienated? How about democrats acting like republicans on fiscal issues?!

Am I right in assuming that you object to the Republican Party making opposition to abortion its official position? Would you be satisfied to be in a Republican Party that was mute on abortion, or would you require the Party to take a pro-choice position?

I think it's a dead horse. We'll never pass a constitutional amendment. That's just realistic.

Or do you feel like the only Party activists whom you encounter are bent on evangelizing you as much as on advocating for the Party's political interests?

I know one GOP evangelical and she does turn people off. They've told me about it.

1054 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:24:26pm

Okay, I'll start-

Religious Conservatives, I like you guys. I don't always agree with everything you espouse, but on the basics of smaller government, lower taxes and personal responsibility, you're usually right there where we need you. I want you to feel welcome under the big tent that we call the GOP!

Fiscal Conservatives, I like you guys too. I'm a big proponent of Fiscal Conservatism myself. I believe that free markets are the way to go, but you need to realize that we need to fight for some targeted regulation also. But you're usually always right there where we need you. I want you to feel welcome under the big tent that we call the GOP!


See?

That wasn't very hard, was it?

Who's next?

1055 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:25:00pm

Night Intrepid (and all Lizards).

Gee, I got a light week coming up, nothing to do at the theatre until Friday, whoopee, 4 days off. The last three weeks have been brutal busy.

Busy comes again starting Dec. when we bump the Christmas show up to 5 performances a week.

Jingle bells, jingle bells... humbug :)

1056 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:25:36pm

re: #1036 apb1
Well apparently over 66 million Americans did - or didn't care about it one way or another.

1057 kuchuklambat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:26:10pm

re: #1016 zombie

oh and if you were to accuse me of using talking points of a Fitzgerald from the as-of-late unmentionable blog, you'd be closer to the truth, I think.

1058 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:26:30pm

re: #1049 realwest

What are you trying to convince me of? To be a loyal party tool? Done that.

1059 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:26:39pm

re: #1055 Walter L. Newton

Night Intrepid (and all Lizards).

Gee, I got a light week coming up, nothing to do at the theatre until Friday, whoopee, 4 days off. The last three weeks have been brutal busy.

Busy comes again starting Dec. when we bump the Christmas show up to 5 performances a week.

Jingle bells, jingle bells... humbug :)

G'Night Walter! Weet dreams. Enjoy the break while you can.

1060 Moe Katz  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:26:43pm

re: #999 Walter L. Newton

I said "bible pounder" and I apologized for it. And who ever got whacked for saying "bible thumpers?"

Bible humpers maybe?

1061 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:27:41pm

re: #1047 wright1

Giuliani is not pro-life, I wish was, but he is not.

Well, he disagrees with you.

1062 wiffersnapper  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:27:44pm

I agree with his arguments that the GOP shouldn't embrace the Religious Right, but I still voted for Musgrave, Schaffer, and McCain.

1063 Fried Spam  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:27:44pm

re: #636 Haverwilde

Sorry if I was a little over the top.


Not a problem. I didn't take it that way; I just thought it was funny. ;>


I personally believe that Clinton and Bush 1 and Bush 2 (until last month) are the recipients of the Reagan boom.


Absolutely. I think the Reagan boom finally ran out.


But given the current state of the depressed economy (and the mention of Clinton positively) I slipped a mental cog for awhile.


The current state of the economy, and what is being done to 'fix' it, are making me more angry with politicians than I know how to express.


It way past time for us to start being more fiscally responsible. This recession/depression we are in, and the massive governmental spending effort to halt it, are going to break the back of America for some years to come.

I could not agree more.

The question is, what do we do from here? Do we try and be a 'big tent', or do we try and throw out various groups because they are not in lock-step with every single point?

We have to be able to come to a consensus based on conservative principles. In effect, we need to have a new 'contract with america' that clearly defines what is being attempted and why.

1064 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:28:03pm

re: #931 DesertSage

I am just doing a "drive by" but I have always been a classical liberal too.

1065 wiffersnapper  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:28:15pm

Because the alternatives scare the heck outta me.

1066 Joo-LiZ  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:28:17pm

Yet another Anti-Semitic incident at UC Berkley. This one sounds particularly vicious.

The Arab students unfurled the large flag on a balcony above the outdoor site where the concert was taking place, inciting a provocation right in front of the concert-goers, who were enjoying the event as part of the campus' Israel Liberation Week. Several Jewish concertgoers went into the building to ask the Arabs to remove the flag – but were viciously attacked, with one male concertgoer knocked down from a blow on the back of his head, witnesses said.

College alumnus Gabe Weiner, who was helping run the concert, was assaulted by the leader of the anti-Israel group, Husam Zakharia, who also attacked one of the performers, Yehuda De Sa. The fight was finally broken up by John Moghtader, a senator in the UC Berkelely student organization. Police were called in and arrested Zakharia along with others from his group, charging them with battery. Witnesses said that the Arab students shouted anti-Semitic curses and epithets throughout the incident, calling the Jews “Nazis” and “dogs,” and threatening to kill them. According to one witness, as many as 20 anti-Israel students participated in the attacks.

1067 Fibonacci  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:28:45pm

This election loss has generated a host of pet theories crafted to push an agenda. I could not detect the slightest tinge of radical religiosity in Governor Palin. She seemed like a libertarian comfortable in her own skin. No one in Alaska even knew what her religion was until she ran for VP. But the perception was created that she was an extreme fundamentalist and that became the mantra. So it is understandable that some people freaked and voted for Obama whose only religion seem to be self-worship.

Anyway the MSM is trying to jerk us to the left anyway they can. I was embarrassed at times by Bush's religiousness but had no reservation about Palin.

The abortion issue for me has nothing to do with religion. No one knows when life begins so on that basis we should err on the side of caution and not allow late term abortions or allow the innocent to die when they are born alive.

Science has revealed that life begins sooner than anyone thought. Brain waves, heart beat, emotions and sensitivity to pain and other sensory capabilities develop earlier than was originally believed. Why does everyone harp on the religious aspects. Is murder against the law because of some commandment? No.

1068 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:29:21pm

re: #1064 Pvt Bin Jammin

I am just doing a "drive by" but I have always been a classical liberal too.

You've always been my favorite.

:')

1069 ggt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:29:28pm

re: #1034 Cattt

I will always hope that a woman can make her own choices and not have government interference in those choices. I'm not so sure I want (as a taxpayer) to be paying for her choices.

I've known several women who have had abortions. Most of whom I could understand their thought process. A couple of these women have had multiple abortions. This I do not understand.

Especially when the "feminists" worked unbelievably hard to make contraception available to women in this country. It wasn't until 1963 that the Supreme Court agreed that a married woman could use contraception without her husband's consent. This case is most often cited as the ground-breaker for Roe V Wade, but is ignored for the monumentus affect it had on women's rights. Most young women today can't conceive of a time when they would be literally forced to have children they couldn't care for or were not healthy enough to bear--simply because they didn't have access to contraception.

I see lack of talk/use about contraception as the issue.

The current crop of feminists is all up in arms about the possibility of losing the right to abortion --when one of the main reason for abortions in the past (unmarried pregnancy) is no longer taboo. The second reason was married women unable to control the number and spacing of their children --which, because of contraception, is no longer an issue.

I hear "well, be prepared for back alley abortions again if we lose Roe V. Wade". I'm not too sure that will be the case. I think, it might just force women (and men) to think before they act.

I remember Obama talking that he would like to work to lower the number of abortions--that won't happen as long as the government is funding them.

I'd like to see funds allocated for contraception.

(BTW--I use the word contraception, not birth control, because there is a big difference between the two about 9 months).

1070 dammad  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:30:26pm

Any "Republican" that didn't vote, or decided to vote for Obama, is not a member of the true Republican party. Sorry. All my stupid lib friends that are supposedly "Catholic" tried the same game with me. They call themselves Roman Catholics but voted for Obama...the most pro-abortion candidate to date. My argument was that they were no longer Catholics but closer to Episcopalians, and they should join THAT church if abortion was so important to them Don't try to change the Catholic church...they are quite clear on their views of abortion...so you need to convert to a different religion if abortion is so near and dear to you. And so the Repubs that didn't vote for McCain should just convert to being Democrats, cuz that's what they are.

1071 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:30:43pm

re: #1050 FurryOldGuyJeans

Why point fingers and blame the people really responsible for failure when you can pillory those already demonized by the winners. Less work that way.

/I mean this time around there wasn't even the usual Bonkeys will appoint pro-abortion judges scare campaign

1072 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:30:51pm

re: #1025 Sharmuta

Right. I just said that is a stupid as the religious righties/pro-lifers who refused to vote for McCain. The man's got a long, illustrious history of fighting irresponsible government spending. He's got a long history of voting against abortion. And I can't even tell you how many times I saw republicans screaming that McCain was a bastard for disagreeing with George Bush or criticizing George Bush--but suddenly if he had nuked the Bush/Paulson bailout plan he would have won more GOP votes? My guess is that lots of folks would have taken the opportunity to crow "see! McCain only votes against republicans!111!"

But for some reason, about 10 million GOP primary voters chose to throw a tantrum and hand the White House to Obama. Some were hard core religious nuts. Some were hard core Paulbot nuts. Some were fiscal conservatives. Some were immigration purists.

Regardless of their particular reason for throwing their tantrum, their behavior helped elect a guy who is FAR WORSE on their particular "purity" than McCain was on his worst day.

Which is why I said they were stupid.

1073 Racer X  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:32:30pm

re: #1066 Joo-LiZ

Wow.

Hate crimes.

Prosecute!

1074 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:32:49pm

re: #1040 Quilly Mammoth
Yup, I'm sure as hell not saying the Republicans are blameless here, not at all.
But the simple fact is that Obama IS the least experienced and most unqualified person to be elected to the Presidency and he did it by engaging in Class Warfare: I'll only tax the "Rich" (admittedly, as his campaign went along, the definition of rich did drop somewhat) and the MSM (and to an extent John McCain) didn't comment on how this would truly hurt small businesses and jobs. When I think of fiscal restraint I DO NOT think of Obama or the Democrats.
Frankly I think the good doctor ought to take a good, long, hard look at the Democratic Party. As currently constituted I believe that it has no use or desire for liberals (see, e.g., Joe Lieberman) nor Israel (see, well, to many to name, but we could start with Obama) but only wants raging Leftists on their side of the aisle. Al Franken? Ned Lamont?
The Republicans definitely do need to review who they are and what they stand for, but the Democrats need that too and IMNSHO, a helluva lot more than do Republicans.

1075 MrSnuggles  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:33:36pm

Can someone please explain to me how voting against gay marriage is "forcing your views" on someone? Gays can be as gay as they want and do whatever they want without government interference and nobody wants intrusion into private life. But when YOU go to the government and make demands on the government, and the government says "sorry, we will not give your life choices the stamp of approval" it is not in any way "forcing your views" on anyone. In fact, if gays were to demand and receive gay marriage via a USSC ruling THAT WOULD BE FORCING THEIR VIEWS on the rest of us because every single American would have to give gay marriage their stamp of approval whether they like it or not.

1076 lostlakehiker  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:33:51pm

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]re: #591 jaunte

This link contains a discussion of step families in fiction. It is a broad and common theme. Why else, but from common experience?

[Link: www.a-team.org...] This next link includes the following

A survey of the professional literature shows that the three main types of abuse most commonly researched are physical abuse and, to a lesser extent, neglect and the trauma of children who have witnessed violence against their parents.8 According to the professional literature, child abuse in the United States exhibits definite demographic patterns:

*

The safest family environment for a child is a home in which the biological parents are married. Contrary to current theory about the effects of marriage on children, recent research demonstrates that marriage provides a safe environment for all family members, one in which child abuse and fatality are lowered dramatically.

And later, this:

#

The rate of abuse is six times higher in the second-safest environment: the blended family in which the divorced mother has remarried.
#

The rate of abuse is 14 times higher if the child is living with a biological mother who lives alone.
#

The rate of abuse is 20 times higher if the child is living with a biological father who lives alone.
#

The rate of abuse is 20 times higher if the child is living with biological parents who are not married but are cohabiting.
#

The rate of abuse is 33 times higher if the child is living with a mother who is cohabiting with another man.


So, while a child is best off with two married biological parents, as I claimed in the post, there are also worse situations than being in a second marriage.

1077 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:34:20pm

re: #1072 funky chicken

We eat our own.

Regardless- my point still stands. Fisc-cons help win or lose elections since 1996.

1078 apb1  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:34:31pm

re: #1056 realwest

The true shame is that I believe most people that vote have absolutely no clue of ANY issues, etc. outside what they BELIEVE to be issues - usually crap pushed by the MSM.

I'm sure you know the drill as well as I do - you find out a relative voted a particular way, and then play jr. detective and try to determine the logic they used. Usually none at this point. You then press with one of the 'did you know?' issues, and they're shocked, SHOCKED that this could have occurred and they didn't know it.

I was reminded of a conversation a month or two ago regarding promoting public service for our disaffected youth...then I hear Obomber suggesting his own division of brownshirts separate from the military, and promoting Obamajugend.

Definitely not the course I would have thought possible...

1079 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:34:44pm

re: #1044 stuiec

Mine's going to say, "Don't blame me, I voted for her."

Mine says, "Don't blame me. I only voted once!"

1080 wolfie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:34:48pm

re: #1038 Killian Bundy

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting this. Throughout the entire campaign the "Religious Right" (whatever that is) doesn't utter a peep in the public discourse regarding religious or social issues, yet gets out their vote on election day.

/and now, after the fact, the disaster of 2008 is suddenly their fault?

Heh. There is no truth, there is only Image.
Your observation of facts is quite rude! :)

1081 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:34:58pm

re: #1054 DesertSage

Okay, I'll start-

Religious Conservatives, I like you guys. I don't always agree with everything you espouse, but on the basics of smaller government, lower taxes and personal responsibility, you're usually right there where we need you. I want you to feel welcome under the big tent that we call the GOP!

Fiscal Conservatives, I like you guys too. I'm a big proponent of Fiscal Conservatism myself. I believe that free markets are the way to go, but you need to realize that we need to fight for some targeted regulation also. But you're usually always right there where we need you. I want you to feel welcome under the big tent that we call the GOP!


See?

That wasn't very hard, was it?

Who's next?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

1082 jaunte  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:36:45pm

re: #1076 lostlakehiker

Thanks for finding that. A couple of my adopted children were abused by their birth parents, so I've witnessed the other side of the anecdotal evidence.

1083 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:36:49pm

re: #1071 Killian Bundy

/I mean this time around there wasn't even the usual Bonkeys will appoint pro-abortion judges scare campaign

What the doctor is doing with his screed is the same as a fan of a professional sports team blaming other fans for the lose.

1084 logboy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:37:30pm

I am a hard right individual. I am a former member of the military who spent nine months in Iraq before getting blown up and sent home permanently injured. Clearly, I love my country and believe in defending it with my life. I firmly believe in the Second Amendment, limited government, individual rights, strong national defense, and freedom of religion. But when someone tries to start cramming a message down my throat with religious connotations, I suddenly feel like it 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning with a Jehovah's Witness pounding on my front door while I'm trying to sleep. I'm extremely turned off by it, and will go the other way pushed hard enough. Everyone has a point where - when faced with two unattractive choices- they have to decide, which is the lesser of two evils?

Obviously, there is no way in hell I would ever vote for Obama. For Obama to be the lesser of two evils, the other would have to be my family and I being forced to jump off a cliff after voting. But from what I gleaned from the article, the doctor clearly does not read LGF, and -in regards to the election- has allowed himself to be educated by the MSM and not see Obama's true colors (no pun intended).

Everyone has their own beliefs. From a lot of the bashing I've heard on this thread, he clearly does not share the beliefs and viewpoints of some people here. But that's not the real issue. The real issue -which he clearly stated- is this: what must be done to pull in votes from these people on election day, and what must be done to pull them back over to the right?

1085 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:38:14pm

back- cant sleep--still buzzed about my 45 min conversation on the phone tonight w/my 90 yr old mom in law--1) she wants to wear stockings under a dress for thanksgiving-wants me to get her 'those rubber band things' to hold up thigh high stockings-i said mom they dont make them anymore-its either knee highs or pantyhose-she insisted she wanted rubber band--maybe i should get her a lacy garter belt form victoria secrets! 2) long discussion on wether she needed fixodent or toothpaste for her dentures (she has 2 tubes of each but needs 'more) 3) when she asked whos going to be at dinner, i explained that our 28 yr ols son and his live in lady and child would be there, she said 'but i tought S was "queer". i asked why and she said-well for the past few yrs s had a male friend with him. i told her that s's friend had lost both parents when he was 17 and i invited him to be part of our family dinner.OH! so he does like girls, then? SIGH dont even get me started on how i had to explain to a then 87 yr old lady what that strange 'bump near by where she pees' was--this after 3 husbands! why i drink in a nutshell!

1086 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:38:37pm

re: #1074 realwest

I would have voted for Joe Lieberman for POTUS over Bush in 2004. But the dem nuts nominated John Kerry. sigh.

1087 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:39:08pm

re: #1055 Walter L. Newton
I thought that was Bah Humbug?!?
Good night Walter.

1088 Tarkus289  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:39:10pm

The problem with having more than two major political parties is that someone could win with 34 percent of the vote, leaving a majority of
the country underrepresented.

1089 rawmuse  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:39:12pm

re: #1081 DesertSage

I largely agree. I am a little unaccustomed for doing what I always considered to be virtuous, attending church, volunteering, and tithing. I am not a creationist. I am a Goldwater style Republican. I live with so many gays around me, I can't count them all.

All of a sudden I got all these arrows in my back. And a knife between my shoulder blades. Pardon me if I get a little grumpy.

Goodnight all.

1090 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:40:35pm

re: #1084 logboy

Believe you me, if you lived in Marilyn Musgrave's district, you would have been sorely tested. She was the type who thinks James Dobson isn't ambitious enough in his religio/social con agenda.

1091 Archimedes  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:40:37pm

re: #1070 dammad

Any "Republican" that didn't vote, or decided to vote for Obama, is not a member of the true Republican party. Sorry. All my stupid lib friends that are supposedly "Catholic" tried the same game with me. They call themselves Roman Catholics but voted for Obama...the most pro-abortion candidate to date. My argument was that they were no longer Catholics but closer to Episcopalians, and they should join THAT church if abortion was so important to them Don't try to change the Catholic church...they are quite clear on their views of abortion...so you need to convert to a different religion if abortion is so near and dear to you. And so the Repubs that didn't vote for McCain should just convert to being Democrats, cuz that's what they are.

I happen to know Paul from Usenet and he is no liberal. He's an Objectivist and a big time believer in capitalism.

He is trying to steer this country toward it's founding ideals of freedom and individual rights. We're way off course and the republicans have been drifting so far off course that they are only viable as an opposition to the democrats who are ridiculously corrupt. In effect, we have two way ward ships taking us into oblivion. Paul is at the point where he wants to teach the republicans a lesson and hope they right their ship.

1092 ggt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:40:59pm

G'night all

weet dreams!

1093 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:41:16pm

re: #1089 rawmuse

I largely agree. I am a little unaccustomed for doing what I always considered to be virtuous, attending church, volunteering, and tithing. I am not a creationist. I am a Goldwater style Republican. I live with so many gays around me, I can't count them all.

All of a sudden I got all these arrows in my back. And a knife between my shoulder blades. Pardon me if I get a little grumpy.

Goodnight all.

Imagine how fisc-cons feel voting for republicans only to see them spend money like liberals.

1094 Semi Cartman  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:41:21pm

re: #1013 solomonpanting

The second point is State Supreme Court judges had already decreed same sex marriage legal, so the passage of Prop 8 was seen as a revocation of legal civil rights.


It's also significant that it's an amendment to the state Constitution, putting it out of range of a judicial veto. ...'To the States, and the People, respectively'... really stands out here. This is how it ought to get done.

1095 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:41:23pm

re: #1053 Sharmuta

Return to fiscal sanity- is that easy enough? What makes me feel alienated? How about democrats acting like republicans on fiscal issues?!

I absolutely, completely agree with you. However, Dr. Hsieh didn't criticize the GOP for that failing; he criticized it for being in thrall to the social conservative agenda of opposing abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage. So why follow that bogus line of criticism when the real problem this time was in fact the spending?

I know one GOP evangelical and she does turn people off. They've told me about it.

Observation one: if you only know one GOP evangelical, it probably isn't as pervasive a problem as Dr. Hsieh says it is.

Observation two: I don't think the Republican Party should be a vehicle for evangelizing for any particular religion. I don't object to the Republican Party defending things like the "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or "In God We Trust" on our currency, because the First Amendment is not a guarantee of freedom from religion in the public square or the precincts of the Federal government.

Observation three: I don't think the Republican Party should take the position that religious activists are unwelcome in the Party, or that they are somehow a lower class of people or an embarrassment to the grand thinkers of the Party.

1096 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:41:23pm

re: #1068 DesertSage
HEY SAGE - I thought I was always your favorite - well, me and Noam!
;')

1097 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:41:27pm

Alrght, here we go . . .

Jindal: Something Is Wrong With The GOP

"As Republicans, we need to do three things to get back on track," he said on CBS' Face The Nation. "Number one, we have got to stop defending the kind of spending and out-of-control spending that we would never tolerate in the other side. You know, when voters tell us that they trust Democrats more to cut their taxes [and] control spending, that tells you something is wrong with the Republican Party. We've got to match our actions with our rhetoric.

"Number two, we've got to stop defending the kinds of corruption we would rightfully criticize in the other party. The week before the election, our most senior senator is convicted on federal charges - and that's only the latest example.

"Number three, we have got to be the party that offers real solutions to the problems that American voters, American families are worried about. We don't need to abandon our conservative principles; we can't just be the 'party of no.' We need to offer real solutions on making health care more affordable, on the economic challenges facing families, on the international threats."

/other than that, he's a FREAK!

1098 Syrah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:42:23pm

I voted for McCain.
and i thought he was one of the worst that the Republicans had to offer.

Obama is a Progressive in the style of Woodrow Wilson. Contemptuous and resentful of the constitution and a believer in the primacy of the collectivist state over the rugged individualist.

I voted for McCain even though I thought he was more like Wilson than any other Republican that ran for the office this go round. I thought that he would be better than Obama because he was less dogmatic about it than was Obama. McCain is an opportunistic progressive, more of a populist really, more of a reed that can be blown in the wind then is the Oak of spiritual socialist collectivism that is Obama.

McCain may not be a creature of the "religious right" but in truth, he is is not a creature of much of anything but his own ego. Even so, I thought he would be a better President then Obama ever would or even could be.

Politics is not about perfect choices between perfectly defined candidates with opposite inclinations. It is an exercise in compromises and half measures.

I hated this election cycle.

I new from the first time that I saw Obama speak that we were beaten like a bunch of whipped curs.

Our candidates, with the exception of McCain, Huckebee and Paul lacked the fortitude to fight it out.

Of those three, only McCain was half way sane.

THe Republican message this time was weak and lacked focus, lacked direction and lacked purposes.

Sucks to be a Republican in such circumstances.

Palin was the only bright spot of this election, but people vote for the top of the ticket, not the bottom.

We lost this election because we deserved to lose it.

1099 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:43:04pm

re: #1068 DesertSage

LOL I am exercizing the Iron Fist Rule here. I am bad.

1100 wolfie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:43:18pm

re: #1075 MrSnuggles

I see that you need re-education camp! :)

1101 BigJohn  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:43:22pm

Does the Doc's argument hold water? Why didn't he have a problem with the Republican party's embrace of the religious right in 1996, 2000, and 2004?

1102 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:43:44pm

re: #1096 realwest

HEY SAGE - I thought I was always your favorite - well, me and Noam!
;')

Yeah, but PBJ bought me a drink the other night :')

You and Noam are still my favorites also though!

1103 Joan  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:43:55pm

funky chicken: "But for some reason, about 10 million GOP primary voters chose to throw a tantrum and hand the White House to Obama. Some were hard core religious nuts. Some were hard core Paulbot nuts. Some were fiscal conservatives. Some were immigration purists.

Regardless of their particular reason for throwing their tantrum, their behavior helped elect a guy who is FAR WORSE on their particular "purity" than McCain was on his worst day."

Great post, thank you.
We had better hang together, or we will certainly be hanged separately...
/paraphrase, close enough

1104 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:44:01pm

re: #1098 Syrah

I voted for McCain.
and i thought he was one of the worst that the Republicans had to offer.

Obama is a Progressive in the style of Woodrow Wilson. Contemptuous and resentful of the constitution and a believer in the primacy of the collectivist state over the rugged individualist.

I voted for McCain even though I thought he was more like Wilson than any other Republican that ran for the office this go round. I thought that he would be better than Obama because he was less dogmatic about it than was Obama. McCain is an opportunistic progressive, more of a populist really, more of a reed that can be blown in the wind then is the Oak of spiritual socialist collectivism that is Obama.

McCain may not be a creature of the "religious right" but in truth, he is is not a creature of much of anything but his own ego. Even so, I thought he would be a better President then Obama ever would or even could be.

Politics is not about perfect choices between perfectly defined candidates with opposite inclinations. It is an exercise in compromises and half measures.

I hated this election cycle.

I new from the first time that I saw Obama speak that we were beaten like a bunch of whipped curs.

Our candidates, with the exception of McCain, Huckebee and Paul lacked the fortitude to fight it out.

Of those three, only McCain was half way sane.

THe Republican message this time was weak and lacked focus, lacked direction and lacked purposes.

Sucks to be a Republican in such circumstances.

Palin was the only bright spot of this election, but people vote for the top of the ticket, not the bottom.

We lost this election because we deserved to lose it.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have someone to vote for, instead of someone to vote against?

1105 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:44:11pm

Somebody please show me where the "religious right" did anything in this election? Where?

Other than the Saddleback Forum, where was this much hated "Religious Right"?

It wasn't the religious right who stayed at home during this election. And the religious right wasn't particularly active in this election. I saw nothing of Jim Dawson or Pat Robertson on the major networks.

Perhaps these republican Obama voters were scared away by a ghost?

Seems like it.

1106 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:44:18pm

re: #1069 ggt
"The current crop of feminists is all up in arms about the possibility of losing the right to abortion..." but don't give a damn about the plight of women in Muslim Countries.
The current "crop" of feminists ONLY care about their personal right to abortion (well I suppose and of the right of their friends and relatives to have abortions).

1107 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:44:36pm

re: #1085 mikeymom

back- cant sleep--still buzzed about my 45 min conversation on the phone tonight w/my 90 yr old mom in law--1) she wants to wear stockings under a dress for thanksgiving-wants me to get her 'those rubber band things' to hold up thigh high stockings-i said mom they dont make them anymore-its either knee highs or pantyhose-she insisted she wanted rubber band--maybe i should get her a lacy garter belt form victoria secrets!

Leg Avenue Women's Stay Up 3-Inch Lace Top Thigh Highs

Bunch of stay-up thigh highs on Amazon - these had three high-star reviews.

Can you pic your mom-in-law in them? If so, they might work!

1108 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:44:37pm

re: #1101 BigJohn

Does the Doc's argument hold water? Why didn't he have a problem with the Republican party's embrace of the religious right in 1996, 2000, and 2004?

/twelve years slow on the uptake, not good for a doctor

1109 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:44:51pm

re: #1096 realwest

He's a nice guy. We are all his favorites.

1110 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:45:20pm

re: #939 winston06

Not sure you were responding to what I said... (I was addressing the fact that the current republicans cannot decry universal health care due to the prescription drug bill) At any rate, I am tolerant of religion, just not when any of tries to enter politics.

1111 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:46:00pm

re: #1095 stuiec

Um- okay. Not sure where I've stated I support kicking anyone out of the party. In fact, it's me that's been asked to leave. I am simply stating my belief that alienating fiscal conservatives has led to democratic victories. I can't explain why they do this- vote 3rd party, stay home, etc. I'm just noticing a trend.

1112 Syrah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:46:07pm

re: #1104 Wyatt Earp

Wouldn't it be great if we could have someone to vote for, instead of someone to vote against?

Hallelujah and Ahem!

1113 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:46:49pm

re: #1084 logboy

But when someone tries to start cramming a message down my throat with religious connotations, I suddenly feel like it 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning with a Jehovah's Witness pounding on my front door while I'm trying to sleep. I'm extremely turned off by it, and will go the other way pushed hard enough.

/what candidate and/or party subjected you to that in the last two years?

1114 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:47:30pm

re: #1062 wiffersnapper

I would have voted for Shaffer and McCain. No go on Musgrave though.

1115 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:47:36pm

re: #949 Quilly Mammoth

Dr. Hseih is quite sincere and honest; he's not a shill. If he said he voted republican, then he did.

1116 wolfie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:47:59pm

re: #1081 DesertSage

I'm waiting for you to call for fisculcons! (Simultaneously a fiscal and cultural conservative.)

I want geometrical proofs and Latin reinstated into school curricula.

1117 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:48:08pm

re: #1107 Cattt

lol--hers are similar-without the lace--but she wants RUBBER BAND thingies to hold them up! told her it would cut off circulation--gee, she would have black and blue legs!

1118 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:48:16pm

I guess it's back to the circular firing squad around here?

1119 Racer X  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:48:18pm

When has a presidential election NOT been all about voting for the tallest midget?

(Reagan excepted)

1120 BigJohn  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:49:03pm

re: #1105 Intrepid


I wondered that myself. They were non-existent.

1121 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:49:30pm

re: #1094 Semi Cartman

It's also significant that it's an amendment to the state Constitution, putting it out of range of a judicial veto. ...'To the States, and the People, respectively'... really stands out here. This is how it ought to get done.

Which brings up a question: Are Amendments to California's Constitution subject to being amended at any time a propostion is submitted? Can there be a yo-yo vote, one year yes, one year no?

1122 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:49:33pm

re: #1081 DesertSage

Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

No, you said it right.

1123 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:49:37pm

Vote for me- I'll cut taxes, keep spending low, and kick anyone's ass who tries to fuck with us!

1124 Racer X  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:50:19pm

re: #1118 DesertSage

Ha!

Nice avatar.

1125 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:50:20pm

re: #1123 Sharmuta

Vote for me- I'll cut taxes, keep spending low, and kick anyone's ass who tries to fuck with us!

Ya got my vote!

1126 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:50:31pm

re: #1116 wolfie

I'm waiting for you to call for fisculcons! (Simultaneously a fiscal and cultural conservative.)

I want geometrical proofs and Latin reinstated into school curricula.

Latin is a good idea. :D

1127 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:51:00pm

re: #1123 Sharmuta

what would we all have in our pots? i'm tired of chicken.

1128 BlueCanuck  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:51:06pm

re: #1123 Sharmuta

I would vote for you if I could. Maybe Acorn could help me out with that.

busy lurking, don't want to get stepped on

1129 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:51:09pm

Social progressives always like to pick on the religious right.

It was the increased black and Hispanic vote in California that got Proposition 8 passed. Social progressives have new targets now.

Good luck picking on these guys.

1130 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:51:11pm

Sharmuta 2012

1131 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:51:12pm

Sage/Sharmuta 2012!

1132 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:51:48pm

re: #1128 BlueCanuck

I would vote for you if I could. Maybe Acorn could help me out with that.

busy lurking, don't want to get stepped on

Don't worry - if anyone steps on you, I'll claw their toes.

1133 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:52:00pm

re: #1123 Sharmuta

Vote for me- I'll cut taxes, keep spending low, and kick anyone's ass who tries to fuck with us!

And I'll drill, Baby, drill!

1134 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:52:03pm

re: #1000 Sharmuta

[...]Honestly- I thought these were things on which all conservatives agreed.[...]

I'm beginning to think it was just false advertising...

1135 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:52:05pm

re: #1048 kuchuklambat

I don't read Daily Ko's and I was not aware of their admission a) that we were right to take Saddam out, b) that there is a wider assault on our nation and values by the global jihad, and c) that weakening Dar al-Islam and strengthening free nations' defensive (and hence economic) abilities is paramount in our foreign policy considerations, even if it conflicts with our sense of short-term compassion to "regular moms and dads" in the land of the Submission cult.
Also didn't hear the Kos giving much of a hoot about Iraqi Christians.

I think they will and do cite any excuse to poo-poo the Iraq War effort, even if the excuses are self-contradictory or internally inconsistent.

1136 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:52:18pm

re: #1131 Pvt Bin Jammin

Sage/Sharmuta 2012!

Sharmuta/Sage 2012!

1137 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:52:38pm

re: #1133 Sharmuta

And I'll drill, Baby, drill!

Smurf-tacular!

1138 Syrah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:52:41pm

re: #1111 Sharmuta

Um- okay. Not sure where I've stated I support kicking anyone out of the party. In fact, it's me that's been asked to leave. I am simply stating my belief that alienating fiscal conservatives has led to democratic victories. I can't explain why they do this- vote 3rd party, stay home, etc. I'm just noticing a trend.

I have been asked to leave ever since I became active in the party.

As a "libertarian" conservative, I always thought that it would be the Religious Right that I would butt heads with the most. I was rather shocked to find out that I was very much mistaken. It was the Ed Zschau and Tom Campbell Republicans that were the most exclusive and exclusionary. It was not at all what I expected.

Don't let any of them push you out.

Stick to your guns.

If all the party was like you, I think we would have the House, the Senate and the Presidency.

1139 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:53:01pm

re: #1134 Dan G.

Having a Zell Miller moment here.

1140 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:53:08pm

re: #1046 Promethea

I wrote you a fan letter, but I didn't answer your question. Yes, your idea is worth pursuing just so we keep the pressure on Obama to recognize the efforts of the U.S. military and the role of President Bush in helping to destroy an insane dictator and bring democracy to a Muslim country.

It's sick how the MSM and the Democrats have united to pervert the American spirit and its role in bettering the lives of millions, maybe billions, of people. The more I think about these mental perverts, the angrier I get. Zombie, you are one of my heroes. Please keep doing what you do. Thanks!

Aw, shucks!

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I might get up the nerve to try to "promote" it to the blogs tomorrow.

1141 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:53:08pm

And Zombie for Secretary of State!

1142 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:53:09pm

re: #1088 Tarkus289
Hey - if y'all want to see how well governed a country is with multiple parties, you need look no further than to Italy - IIRC, after WWII, they had something close to 24 different political parties and 49 different governments in 51 years!
The two-party system works well when a) EACH of the parties has an understandable platform b) the MSM faithfully reports - not opines, but reports on those two platforms and c) neither party is allowed to buy the election.
Or have foreign phone banks set up to call voters for their candiate, a la Hamas in Gaza phone banks for Obama.

1143 Joan  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:53:31pm

re: #1098 Syrah

dinged up, Syrah; we did deserve to lose this election. I'm sorry we lost, and here we are still in the circular firing squad. We gnaw at our own entrails and kill our wounded, that's how you tell us apart from the Democrats: we're the jackals not the jackasses.

1144 Racer X  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:53:46pm

re: #1129 Adina in Judea

Social progressives always like to pick on the religious right.

It was the increased black and Hispanic vote in California that got Proposition 8 passed. Social progressives have new targets now.

Good luck picking on these guys.

Racism!

1145 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:53:52pm

re: #1097 Killian Bundy

Alrght, here we go . . .

Jindal: Something Is Wrong With The GOP

/other than that, he's a FREAK!

Yeah, those three points. And then not impose a litmus test on other points.

1146 wolfie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:54:05pm

re: #1103 Joan

I keep hearing that...about all the GOP primary voters who stayed home in the general election. But then I hear the opposite, too.
Any sources you can point me to?

1147 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:54:05pm

re: #1138 Syrah

Thanks, Syrah.

1148 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:54:58pm

re: #1136 Cattt

It works either way. I know Sage personally so that's the only reason I wrote it that way. I'm a gal so I almost did it the other way, Heh.

1149 Joan  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:55:45pm

re: #1111 Sharmuta

Um- okay. Not sure where I've stated I support kicking anyone out of the party. In fact, it's me that's been asked to leave. I am simply stating my belief that alienating fiscal conservatives has led to democratic victories. I can't explain why they do this- vote 3rd party, stay home, etc. I'm just noticing a trend.

? who asked you to leave

should I punch 'em for you, 'cause I would; 'course my wind-up is a bit prolix...

1150 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:56:02pm

re: #1144 Racer X

re: #1129 Adina in Judea

Social progressives always like to pick on the religious right.

It was the increased black and Hispanic vote in California that got Proposition 8 passed. Social progressives have new targets now.

Good luck picking on these guys.

Racism!

The names that social progressives are calling their new targets in their post-election quiet riots are indeed racist.

Not that the MSM wants to talk about it.

1151 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:56:07pm

Zombie, I read your Obama piece about his close encounter with the Weather Underground. I'd never read such a thorough chronology, and I am sure it is the most thorough. Thanks for all the research you must have done to put it together.

1152 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:56:13pm

re: #1042 Racer X

To those of you who voted for someone other than McCain or did not vote at all: You fucked us all. [...]

Wrong. The republican leadership which essentially began acting like democrats (i.e. lack of fiscal conservative policy etc...) gave up their competitive advantage and the sugar coating that allowed some to tolerate the religious right. They fucked up, they lost mine (and others') vote.

1153 [deleted]  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:56:15pm
1154 BlueCanuck  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:56:33pm

re: #1132 Cattt

If I did get stepped on, it would be my fault. This whole convo is one of the ones where it's best I just observe and lurk.

/have opinions, but not sure what they are. . . .

1155 Randall Gross  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:57:05pm

re: #886 Killian Bundy

Prop 8 won. Expelled? Wow, did anyone even see it?

/or was Ben Stein elected Pope of the "Religious Right"?


and the people who voted it in voted out R's and put in Dems, wasn't a very good strategy was it?

1156 rboa  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:57:09pm

I am just so tired of these lies. It is easy to say repubs "embraced the religious right", but guess what... NOT A SINGLE POLICY DECISION CAN BE POINTED TO!

Stem cell research, again lies! It is not illegal to perform stem cell research. However you cannot use Federal money to do it. For reference see the state of California's stem cell research program.

This article is so packed with lies I am disappointed it was referred to from LGF.

1157 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:57:22pm

re: #1154 BlueCanuck

If I did get stepped on, it would be my fault. This whole convo is one of the ones where it's best I just observe and lurk.

/have opinions, but not sure what they are. . . .

I don't care whose fault it is! Toes DESERVE to be clawed!

1158 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:57:54pm

re: #1141 Cattt

Love it! Zombie for Sec. of State!

1159 Racer X  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:58:15pm

re: #1150 Adina in Judea

The names that social progressives are calling their new targets in their post-election quiet riots are indeed racist.

Not that the MSM wants to talk about it.

What is equally ignorant is these "progressives" are claiming the blacks and hispanics voted for prop 8 because their church told them to.

Right.

1160 medaura18586  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:58:18pm

re: #382 ornery elephant

That's a complete crock, medaura - you know full well that it was embryonic stem cell research. And besides, where exactly is the headquarters of this "Religious Right" you speak of? You've been watching a bit too much of Chris Matthews.

I could care less whether it was embryonic. Where did I try to dispute that? So what? It's all tied back up to abortion then, isn't it? I don't watch TV either, so that gag-reflex Chris Mathews B.S was a miss.

1161 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:58:43pm

re: #1149 Joan

? who asked you to leave

should I punch 'em for you, 'cause I would; 'course my wind-up is a bit prolix...

It's in the link:

In his October 24, 2008 radio broadcast, Rush Limbaugh told pro-choice secular supporters of limited government such as myself that we should leave the Republican Party.

This saddens me.

1162 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:58:48pm

re: #1097 Killian Bundy

sounds like McCain in all 3 of those points. but for some reason 10 million GOP primary voters refused to support him.

and Jindal is a creationist/intelligent design advocate for public schools. and the excorcism thing from his college days will ruin him. YES THAT'S UNFAIR especially considering Obama's spending 20 years being mentored by Jeremiah "US of KKK A" Wright and Bill "kill 25 million capitalists" Ayers.

But it's the truth. Jindal is perfect for LA governor, and I hope he serves there for many, many years. He'd be a great US Senator from LA. I simply don't see him winning a general election to POTUS.

And I answered your question many times...the religous/social con issues featured prominently in many of the House races, and even in Liddy Dole's race for the Senate (stupid godless ad). If you live in a district where the GOP is defined by a Marilyn Musgrave, it's pretty hard to avoid seeing the GOP as the religious/social conservative extreme.

1163 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:59:10pm

re: #1102 DesertSage
WHAT?!? PBJ bought you a drink and now she's your best friend? One crummy drink and probably a beer, at that?
Hmmph - I'll buy ya two if you promise to like me best!

1164 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:59:15pm

re: #1155 Thanos

and the people who voted it in voted out R's and put in Dems, wasn't a very good strategy was it?

/it was California, what's your point?

1165 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 9:59:30pm

re: #1123 Sharmuta

Vote for me- I'll cut taxes, keep spending low, and kick anyone's ass who tries to fuck with us!

You gotta come up with a more "family friendly" slogan than that, Shar.

But it'll do.

1166 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:00:33pm

re: #1165 Intrepid

You gotta come up with a more "family friendly" slogan than that, Shar.

But it'll do.

"Kicking ass and taking names"?

1167 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:00:36pm

re: #1141 Cattt

And Zombie for Secretary of State!

Yeah, and I'd be arranging that ticker-tape parade down Fifth Avenue for our troops for real.

1168 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:01:17pm

re: #1166 Sharmuta

Kicking ass and chewing bubblegum... and I'm all out of bubblegum. ;)

1169 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:01:31pm

re: #1151 Cattt

Zombie, I read your Obama piece about his close encounter with the Weather Underground. I'd never read such a thorough chronology, and I am sure it is the most thorough. Thanks for all the research you must have done to put it together.

You're wlecome! Fat lot of good it did in the long run, but hey, at least we can say we tried.

1170 Racer X  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:01:47pm

re: #1152 Dan G.

Wrong. The republican leadership which essentially began acting like democrats (i.e. lack of fiscal conservative policy etc...) gave up their competitive advantage and the sugar coating that allowed some to tolerate the religious right. They fucked up, they lost mine (and others') vote.

I respectfully disagree.

The religious right was no where to be found this election. Nothing to "tolerate".

And the argument of "republicans are acting too liberal - so I'm gonna put a far left liberal in office" simply does not make sense.

1171 MrSnuggles  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:02:38pm

Something just struck me. It is a tactic of the left to sow seeds of insurrection in the Republican party and it seems to be working. It is the left that has come out and blamed this all on Palin and religious conservatives, and you fools are falling for their trap. What better way win ideological issues like gay marriage and abortion than to trick your enemies into believing that they are on the wrong side of the issue. The fact is, if the dems were on the right side of these two issues they would have been front and center, but they were not, nary a word was even spoken of them.

1172 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:03:22pm

re: #1133 Sharmuta

you just defined the McCain/Palin platform. yet, millions of GOP voters turned up their noses and refused to support them.

it's inexplicable...except for the fact that Bush and the GOP congress really screwed the pooch, and the MSM fed voters uninterrupted doses of hopium, and way, way too many GOP voters were more interested in nursing personal grudges against John McCain than in protecting our country from Obama and his long-term mentors.

1173 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:03:42pm

re: #1153 buzzsawmonkey

You'll just barely have time to arrange for the big photo of someone in uniform kissing a pretty girl in Times Square.

If that photo was taken today, the person in uniform would be a dyke in military fetish gear and the girl would be a tranny.

1174 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:04:08pm

re: #1156 rboa

Just because they failed doesn't mean they didn't try. What's more, the lack of backbone on fiscal issues was due to the fact that the religious right doesn't actually value fiscal restraint etc... they'll say they are, but those positions are just a means to an end. What's more, you don't think that the decision to go with Palin (after much complaining about Obama's lack of experience) was religious right-based decision?

1175 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:04:24pm

re: #1111 Sharmuta

Um- okay. Not sure where I've stated I support kicking anyone out of the party. In fact, it's me that's been asked to leave. I am simply stating my belief that alienating fiscal conservatives has led to democratic victories. I can't explain why they do this- vote 3rd party, stay home, etc. I'm just noticing a trend.

Again, I agree. Not only can't the Republicans win without fiscal conservatives, they really don't DESERVE to win without adhering to fiscal conservatism.

But the Republicans also can't win without social conservatives. The interests of fiscal and social conservatives overlap to a vast extent.

Where they don't overlap, I think the differences can be bridged with a policy of supporting social gradualism and democratic principles of social evolution, rather than looking to judicial fiat to force societal change without regard to the will of the voters.

1176 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:04:34pm

re: #1104 Wyatt Earp
"Wouldn't it be great if we could have someone to vote for, instead of someone to vote against?"
Damn right it would. I've been voting for a looong time now and the last time I voted FOR a candidate and not AGAINST a candiate was Bush v. Kerry. And before that it was Giuliani vs Dinkins (round two; first go round I voted for Dinkins who proved to be a momumentally kind human being, but who couldn't lead a pack of starving dogs to a plate full of food) and then I voted FOR Giuliani and that was in 1997!

1177 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:04:35pm

re: #1152 Dan G.

Wrong. The republican leadership which essentially began acting like democrats (i.e. lack of fiscal conservative policy etc...) gave up their competitive advantage and the sugar coating that allowed some to tolerate the religious right. They fucked up, they lost mine (and others') vote.

When did the republican leadership not tolerate the religious right?

1178 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:04:54pm

re: #1156 rboa

Stem cell research, again lies! It is not illegal to perform stem cell research. However you cannot use Federal money to do it.

If the research was promising, they wouldn't need Federal money to do it.

They ask for Federal money (and demonize conservatives for not wanting Federal money to do it) because Federal money is a big, huge give-away that they want.

They act as if Christopher Reeve would have walked if only Federal money would have been provided for this research. It's not true.

1179 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:05:08pm

re: #1172 funky chicken

I'm not trying to defend this behavior- just pointing out there is something to be said for the notion it's the fisc-cons getting pissed off costing us elections.

1180 gmsc  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:06:16pm

re: #1168 Dan G.

Kicking ass and chewing bubblegum... and I'm all out of bubblegum. ;)

You gotta love "They Live"!

Ever see the parody of this line they did on MST3K?

"I'm here to chew bubblegum and kick ass . . . and I'm all out of ass."

1181 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:06:21pm

re: #1175 stuiec

Wish you'd been here to say that about 1000 some odd posts ago.

1182 mikeymom  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:06:28pm

re: #1166 Sharmuta

i think the first one would go over big--im sure that pretty soon the f word will be allowed-look at how freaki' is aceppted now and some of the promos for prime time shows--like 2and1/2 men and others are soo explicit--glad i dont have any youngun's anymore

1183 Racer X  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:06:32pm

re: #1172 funky chicken

it's inexplicable...except for the fact that Bush and the GOP congress really screwed the pooch, and the MSM fed voters uninterrupted doses of hopium, and way, way too many GOP voters were more interested in nursing personal grudges against John McCain than in protecting our country from Obama and his long-term mentors.

IMO Bush and the GOP congress screwed the pooch trying to appease democrats with gifts (legislation) in exchange for the Iraq war. That strategy failed miserably.

1184 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:06:42pm

re: #1171 MrSnuggles

Something just struck me. It is a tactic of the left to sow seeds of insurrection in the Republican party and it seems to be working. It is the left that has come out and blamed this all on Palin and religious conservatives, and you fools are falling for their trap. What better way win ideological issues like gay marriage and abortion than to trick your enemies into believing that they are on the wrong side of the issue. The fact is, if the dems were on the right side of these two issues they would have been front and center, but they were not, nary a word was even spoken of them.

MrSnuggles - you're a very smart guy.

Here's a {snuggle} for you!

1185 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:06:50pm

re: #1166 Sharmuta

"Kicking ass and taking names"?

Yikes! You need a handler to help you with the "message". No "fuck", no "ass"...nothing along the curse word line.

How about:

"Keeping you safe while helping you prosper"

1186 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:07:08pm

re: #1109 Pvt Bin Jammin
Aw, that's sweet of you to say, PBJ, but we both know that Sage really does like EVERYONE!
Especially those who'll buy him a drink! :)

1187 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:07:26pm

re: #1176 realwest

"Wouldn't it be great if we could have someone to vote for, instead of someone to vote against?"
Damn right it would. I've been voting for a looong time now and the last time I voted FOR a candidate and not AGAINST a candiate was Bush v. Kerry. And before that it was Giuliani vs Dinkins (round two; first go round I voted for Dinkins who proved to be a momumentally kind human being, but who couldn't lead a pack of starving dogs to a plate full of food) and then I voted FOR Giuliani and that was in 1997!

Agreed, Real. It's been a long time for me, as well. Too many election cycles with junk as the choices. Of course, considering what the MSM puts candidates through during the election season, it's no wonder why good people do not want to serve.

1188 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:07:49pm

re: #1162 funky chicken

And I answered your question many times...the religous/social con issues featured prominently in many of the House races

/was I talking about local races?

1189 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:08:04pm

re: #1163 realwest

WHAT?!? PBJ bought you a drink and now she's your best friend? One crummy drink and probably a beer, at that?
Hmmph - I'll buy ya two if you promise to like me best!

You got it, RW! Should I send you a plane ticket?

1190 Joan  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:08:09pm

re: #1105 Intrepid

Somebody please show me where the "religious right" did anything in this election? Where?

Other than the Saddleback Forum, where was this much hated "Religious Right"?

It wasn't the religious right who stayed at home during this election. And the religious right wasn't particularly active in this election. I saw nothing of Jim Dawson or Pat Robertson on the major networks.

Perhaps these republican Obama voters were scared away by a ghost?

Seems like it.

Displacement?
Nah. More like frustration, a real desire to focus on key, winnable issues. I really do get that, the upshot of this dogfight. But, also, some real hostility is surfacing, and more than a bit of social embarrassment, "People think Republicans are like that how humiliating! We must keep these crazy aunties in the attic until the garden party is over."

1191 shanec99  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:08:26pm

re: #1166 Sharmuta

"Kicking ass and taking names"?


How about:
America's history has demonstrated its committment to protecting individual freedom and liberty. If you believe that freedom and liberty are our children's birthright and worth protecting then vote for me. I will protect them.
Should that be what we conservatives should be saying?

1192 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:08:43pm

re: #1185 Intrepid

Yikes! You need a handler to help you with the "message". No "fuck", no "ass"...nothing along the curse word line.

How about:

"Keeping you safe while helping you prosper"

OK- you're hired for my campaign slogan manager.

1193 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:08:55pm

re: #1115 Dan G.
Hey Dan G. - do you really know Dr. Hseih? Personally I mean?

1194 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:09:13pm

re: #1191 shanec99

Yes- it is what we should be saying.

1195 BlueCanuck  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:09:28pm

Okay, I think I have enough coffee in my system to throw in my 2 cents worth. This whole religous right boogey man is a red herring being tossed out. When ever the left starts screaming, ranting, and raving, they try to tar the right as knuckle dragging bible thumpers that want to take the rights of the group away. We see it as well up here in Canuckistan. Yes you do get a few groups of people that say their religion means that this, or that is wrong. Are they any different from the wacked out leftists that say they need more rights to do their own follies? The parts of the right that wish to impose their beliefs on the rest of the party are in fact a minority. Using them as whipping posts for why the party failed to win is wrong. I think that the main point that keeps cropping up is that the representatives in your congress, of the right, have failed to follow their parties doctrines.

It's now time to regroup, lick wounds, and analyze why they failed. Ripping each other apart, and talking about ostracizing a small group is only going to keep the left in power for years to come. Get back to basics, get the word out, and try not to let the MSM write your party platforms to the public.

1196 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:09:39pm

re: #1115 Dan G.

Dr. Hseih is quite sincere and honest; he's not a shill. If he said he voted republican, then he did.

If he's sincere and honest, then he's situationally stupid or bigoted, because he's hanging his argument on something that wasn't true of this election, namely the Republicans making the issues of abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage the primary focus of this campaign.

By the way, isn't the argument that an embryo or fetus is only a clump of cells at its core a religious argument? Why is Dr. Hsieh's religious view okay to shove down everyone's throat through Roe v. Wade, but any other religious view not similarly privileged?

1197 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:09:46pm

re: #1170 Racer X

Palin is not representative of the religious right? What's more, for me, and others I've spoken to, the religious right was one part, the other is that I'm in this for the long game... I don't want these spend-thrift republicans and their statist policies to be associated with capitalism... I don't want these censorious republicans to be associated with individual rights, and I don't want the war strategy which completely avoided attacking Saudi Arabia and Iran to be considered a "tough stance" against the enemies of this nation.

Finally, to focus on the activities of the presidential election and ignore all of the religious right initiatives (using the constitution as a reign on individuals via banning gay marriage... laying the groundwork for either forcing religion in the science classroom or for future law suits against the state at further burden to the tax payer, etc...) going on around at the state level is quite an egregious oversight.

1198 Salem  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:09:59pm

re: #1118 DesertSage

I guess it's back to the circular firing squad around here?

That's your characterization. Seems more like some people are determined to play the martyr.

1199 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:10:38pm

re: #1160 medaura18586

I could care less whether it was embryonic. Where did I try to dispute that? So what? It's all tied back up to abortion then, isn't it? I don't watch TV either, so that gag-reflex Chris Mathews B.S was a miss.

Leaving out the word "embryonic" changed your statement and made it incorrect factually.

On a related note, here is what I THINK is the current policy (don't think this has changed):

Federal funds are used for research on existing stem cell lines that were derived:
(1) with the informed consent of the donors;
(2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and
(3) without any financial inducements to the donors.

In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, the NIH will examine the derivation of all existing stem cell lines and create a registry of those lines that satisfy this criteria. More than 60 existing stem cell lines from genetically diverse populations around the world are expected to be available for federally-funded research.

No federal funds will be used for:
(1) the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos;
(2) the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or
(3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose.

1200 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:10:49pm

re: #1177 solomonpanting

Some voters, not the leadership.

1201 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:11:45pm

re: #1193 realwest

I've read his writing quite a bit and have had email correspondence with him. You might disagree with him, but he's no shill.

1202 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:11:53pm

re: #1185 Intrepid

Yikes! You need a handler to help you with the "message". No "fuck", no "ass"...nothing along the curse word line.

How about:

"Keeping you safe while helping you prosper"

Those who prosper need help from the government like they need a tax increase and more meddling regulations.

"Keeping you safe while LETTING you prosper".

1203 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:12:03pm

re: #1186 realwest

LOL He really doesn't even drink, but he wanted to try the mescal (for Miguel) and nobody is carrying it around here. I would have had it just for Miguel, too. Here's to ya Miguel!

1204 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:12:07pm

re: #1174 Dan G.

re: #1156 rboa

Just because they failed doesn't mean they didn't try. What's more, the lack of backbone on fiscal issues was due to the fact that the religious right doesn't actually value fiscal restraint etc... they'll say they are, but those positions are just a means to an end.

Which large identifiable group do you think the religious right is trying to fool?

What's more, you don't think that the decision to go with Palin (after much complaining about Obama's lack of experience) was religious right-based decision?

Obama's experience was mostly in saying "present" in a room full of people who were saying "Yay" and "Nay."

Palin has executive experience over an entire state and its National Guard.

Palin out-experienced Obama.

1205 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:12:20pm

re: #1134 Dan G.

I'm beginning to think it was just false advertising...

No. Conservatives agree on those points. It's REPUBLICANS who hold diverse opinions on them.

1206 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:12:48pm

re: #1173 zombie

If that photo was taken today, the person in uniform would be a dyke in military fetish gear and the girl would be a tranny.

If it's in Times Square, I'm sure the Naked Cowboy would be involved somehow.

1207 Syrah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:13:22pm

re: #1123 Sharmuta

Vote for me- I'll cut taxes, keep spending low, and kick anyone's ass who tries to fuck with us!


You have my vote.

1208 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:13:39pm

re: #1192 Sharmuta

OK- you're hired for my campaign slogan manager.

Woot! I got a job! Yay!

Smurfs 2012! Blue power! YOU WON'T RUE GOING BLUE!

1209 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:13:51pm

re: #1196 stuiec

It doesn't have to be the primary focus of the campaign message.. what do you, like the leftists, think that voters can only think in terms of the information that is spoon-fed them? Are you going to deny that the religious right in Colorado tried a ballot initiative to define that life begins a conception?

So what if it wasn't made a focus, the facts are still there behind the polished PR made image.

1210 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:14:17pm

re: #1118 DesertSage
Sage, dear friend that you are, would you please stop saying that? This is as far from a circular firing squad as you can get. This thread was started by a statement Charles put up about a doctor in Denver or at least Colorado, saying why he didn't vote Republican.
That many, indeed I'd say most all "Republicans" on this thread have tried to point out that this statement is at best ludicrous and at worst, disingenuous is really what folks are discussing and disagreeing about - we are most certainly not in the same circle!

1211 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:14:38pm

re: #1196 stuiec

Definitions found through science isn't religion... nice try.

1212 kuchuklambat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:15:31pm

re: #1135 zombie

Not sure whether Kos concern will be of any help to Iraqi Christians, but regardless, zombie -- what does it matter who says the truth (as some brave former muslims reply to various ad homini)? Either the statement (that our effort of nation-building in Iraq was a vain and illiterate folly and a tremendous waste of our resources in the face of an existential threat) is true or it is false, there are enough available facts to make it a decidable proposition. Democracy without constitutional protections for minorities and the individual is not worth much, and democracy with Sharia written into the constitution is a bad joke, purple finger or not.

1213 wolfie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:15:44pm

re: #1195 BlueCanuck

That was worth considerably more than 2 cents!

1214 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:16:11pm

re: #1208 Intrepid

YOU WON'T RUE GOING BLUE!

LMAO!

1215 Intrepid  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:16:14pm

re: #1202 FurryOldGuyJeans

Those who prosper need help from the government like they need a tax increase and more meddling regulations.

"Keeping you safe while LETTING you prosper".

You're hired too. We're on the Sharmuta campaign staff.

1216 Syrah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:16:31pm

re: #1143 Joan

Circular firing squads are a game of last man standing.

No rhyme or reason to it. No strategy can or could be applied to it.

They are not helpful. I hope the Republicans will get their act together real soon or we won't have anyone left to fill our "big tent"

1217 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:16:38pm

When the Republicans field more conservative candidates the voters will come.

1218 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:16:45pm

re: #1209 Dan G.

It doesn't have to be the primary focus of the campaign message.. what do you, like the leftists, think that voters can only think in terms of the information that is spoon-fed them? Are you going to deny that the religious right in Colorado tried a ballot initiative to define that life begins a conception?

So what if it wasn't made a focus, the facts are still there behind the polished PR made image.

You sound a little paranoid hyper about this subject. Just because there are people who push such issues, which don't fly, you run screamig to the left and vote for an uber liberal? That's foolish. IMHO. Or do I misunderstand what you are saying? It's late - maybe I'm confused?

1219 Racer X  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:16:51pm

re: #1197 Dan G.
Wow. Not sure where to start.

Palin is not representative of the religious right?

No.

I don't want these spend-thrift republicans and their statist policies to be associated with capitalism...

Huh? It is clear Bush and Co. were trying to appease democrats by spending like drunken sailors. It failed.

I don't want these censorious republicans to be associated with individual rights,


Please describe "censorious republicans"?

and I don't want the war strategy which completely avoided attacking Saudi Arabia and Iran to be considered a "tough stance" against the enemies of this nation.

Righ. Attack SA and Iran. Drive them oil prices back up!

Finally, to focus on the activities of the presidential election and ignore all of the religious right initiatives (using the constitution as a reign on individuals via banning gay marriage... laying the groundwork for either forcing religion in the science classroom or for future law suits against the state at further burden to the tax payer, etc...) going on around at the state level is quite an egregious oversight.


I'm sorry I must be slow because I don't get this one at all.

1220 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:16:53pm

re: #1217 FurryOldGuyJeans

When the Republicans field more conservative candidates the voters will come.

DING

1221 BlueCanuck  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:16:54pm

re: #1213 wolfie

That was worth considerably more than 2 cents!

And you should hear me when I get drinking. Someone asked me once why I wasn't in politics. My reply was that I am too honest. ;)

1222 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:17:28pm

re: #1215 Intrepid

You're hired too. We're on the Sharmuta campaign staff.

I prefer loyal opposition. ;)

1223 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:19:13pm

re: #1210 realwest

re: #1118 DesertSage
Sage, dear friend that you are, would you please stop saying that? This is as far from a circular firing squad as you can get. This thread was started by a statement Charles put up about a doctor in Denver or at least Colorado, saying why he didn't vote Republican.
That many, indeed I'd say most all "Republicans" on this thread have tried to point out that this statement is at best ludicrous and at worst, disingenuous is really what folks are discussing and disagreeing about - we are most certainly not in the same circle!

Good posts, realwest!

Denver is a vastly liberal city, by the way.

The county-by-county maps from 2004 show that Colorado is not a big red state. It's a state with large red and blue areas in it.

The reason why Colorado goes Republican for the Presidency at times is because of the incredibly solid support of the religious right and the military in places like Colorado Springs and Pueblo.

Boulder, CO is as liberal as Berkeley and the People's Republic of Cambridge.

1224 shanec99  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:19:33pm

re: #1194 Sharmuta

Yes- it is what we should be saying.


Then why are we trying to be Democrat lite and getting away from what is really important.
Protect liberty and allow people to go about their business without interfernace.
Guarantee freedom and allow people to rise as high as thier hard work will carry them, ensuring that all people have access to opportunities and that the playing field is level.
Give stalwart support to our allies and friend all over the world.
Protect the weak from oppression and give a hand to those in anguish from the excesses of tyrannical ideologies.

That is what President Reagan supported, and he changed the world. These people who call themselves Republican leaders are acting like imitation Democrats. They are insipid, and they are destroying a tradition that made America the "shining city on the hill." During the Reagan years people who strove for liberty all over "the four corners of the earth" always felt that America was their champion.

1225 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:20:31pm

re: #1216 Syrah

I don't think that the circular firing squad is an apt metaphor for what's going on here (at least what I'm trying to do). It is simply feedback, this is what went wrong, and this is why this political coalition is essentially over. I will not work with individuals who do not have individual rights and all that follows (good fiscal policiy, individual responsibility, small precisely defined govn't actions, etc...) as the CORE values. Consider it a sign of respect that people are going to the trouble to explain why they're fed up; they could've just left and left y'all guessing.

1226 LarrySheldon  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:20:56pm

I don't know what "religious right" and social conservative actually mean.

I am a Republican beause I believe anarchy has some serious problems.

I believe in the smallest possible government whose principle assignment is the protection of the rights as described in the Constitution of all persons (including but not limited to those who have not yet recorded their foot prints).

1227 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:22:13pm

re: #1218 Cattt

I didn't vote for Obama, nice try. Do you honestly think that McCain would have been less lefty? Even after HIS calls for service (following 9/11), and HIS sponsorship of McCain Feingold? I'll vote for the latter of your explanations.

1228 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:22:44pm

re: #1211 Dan G.

Definitions found through science isn't religion... nice try.

Do you know at what point life begins?
Do you think whether or not to abort is a moral choice?

1229 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:24:05pm

re: #1219 Racer X

So, Palin was chosen for her experience?

So its the democrats' fault that Bush tried to appease them? Twisted.

"censorious republicans" McCain-Feingold

Oil is more important to you than the threat these nations pose? Huh?

1230 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:25:42pm

re: #1158 Pvt Bin Jammin
Yes! Zombie for Secretary of State and realwest as Secretary of Defense!

1231 NY Nana  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:25:47pm

re: #544 The Shadow Do

I have this theory about why Republicans keep losing elections...

They keep running crappy candidates.

/And the Demonrats run the best of the best.

Just look at who will be our President, our VP, Pelosi, and too many to name as I am trying to get to sleep at a reasonable hour. I still cannot believe that they are actually elected...we have only those voters who decided to stay home to blame, damn it. Too bad the names of those who are registered but do not vote can't be made public.

I know that the Republicans are outnumbered and that people were unhappy with the choices, but damn it, not voting? Unconscionable. It is a privilege that millions of people around the world would give their lives for, and tragically do, when they try to change their dictatorship into a democracy.I have to wonder what they think if they are aware of the fact that people here throw tantrums if the candidate is not to their qualifications.

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, and in Hussein and Biden? We got the bottom of the barrel, and our kids and grandkids will pay the price, but so will all those who sat on their asses.

End of rant, but I am so pissed that I could scream.

And the MD in that article? I hope he can perform a lobotomy on himself. I read the article 3 or 4 times...excuses, excuses...

1232 Promethea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:27:01pm

re: #1178 Adina in Judea

If the research was promising, they wouldn't need Federal money to do it.

They ask for Federal money (and demonize conservatives for not wanting Federal money to do it) because Federal money is a big, huge give-away that they want.

They act as if Christopher Reeve would have walked if only Federal money would have been provided for this research. It's not true.

When I point this out to liberals, I get the eyeroll. Why do these fools think that the FEDERAL government has to do everything. When did the federal government become the source of all knowledge? I must have been on vacation that day.

1233 Wishing  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:27:02pm

Sleep well lizards

1234 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:27:37pm

re: #1229 Dan G.

So, Palin was chosen for her experience?

Palin had more going for her than her executive experience, but let's face it - the last time a Senator was elected President (before the recent election) was 1960 (almost 50 years ago.)

Senators are not regarded as having as much experience as Governors.

Sarah Palin is a Governor.

1235 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:27:38pm

re: #1228 solomonpanting

Life? Of the cell, or the organism? Cells with the human genome aren't individual humans, yet. Individuality begins when the INFANT is physically separated from its mother. Its not an issue of alive versus not alive, it is an issue of "individual human being" vs. "dependent potential human being".

Abortion is completely moral. Sacrificing an existing individual to a potential one is not moral and to try and force such a situation would be an egregious infraction of individual rights.

1236 Joan  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:27:59pm

re: #1161 Sharmuta

This saddens me.

Sometimes the mighty Rush we hear is the sound of an idiot wind. No, you're not to leave--and to the dismay of many, I'm not leaving either. I've voted Republican since Nixon II

How can anyone talk and expound for three hours a day about their political views without saying stupid things, counterproductive things? When I have to wince at some of his pompous dictates, then I remind myself about that early phase years ago,lwhen Rush was the only voice that was around to inspire and bolster my viewpoints. Just the other day or so I myself shamefully dropped the f bomb--and I do regret it.

/We have to keep the circular firing squad intact, around the Constitution. We're just facing the wrong direction at the moment.

1237 DesertSage  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:28:41pm

re: #1210 realwest

Sage, dear friend that you are, would you please stop saying that? This is as far from a circular firing squad as you can get. This thread was started by a statement Charles put up about a doctor in Denver or at least Colorado, saying why he didn't vote Republican.
That many, indeed I'd say most all "Republicans" on this thread have tried to point out that this statement is at best ludicrous and at worst, disingenuous is really what folks are discussing and disagreeing about - we are most certainly not in the same circle!

I'm saying that because all I hear anymore is fiscal conservatives attacking social conservatives...and visa-versa.

Conservatives shouldn't be attacking each other...period. Reagan didn't create a Big Tent party by allowing conservatives to attack each other. The GOP should be a BIG TENT. It should allow ALL conservatives to feel welcome under it.

If I hear one more time that Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin aren't qualified to be president because of their religious convictions...I'm gonna puke!
It makes absolutely no sense to me that people would think that way. These are two of the brightest, most articulate and most energetic young members of the GOP, yet a lot of people here are freaked out because they're...do I dare say it...Christians! *shock!*

Who gives a shit? I'm not a Christian, but I still like them. In a big tent, you're gonna get all kinds. I wouldn't give a shit if they were atheists either. As long as they espouse the values of free market capitalism, low taxes, personal responsibility, government restraint, and so on...I could care less if they were Witchdoctors.

And the people who do care are the ones forming the circular firing squad.

And as long as they keep doing it...I'll be hanging out with the Libertarians.

1238 mockmook  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:28:44pm

It seems many of the comments on this thread assume that so-cons and fisc-cons are two separate entities.

I believe most so-cons are also fisc-cons.

1239 nightwatch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:28:54pm

WOW...Stinky, major pause load tonight, could it BE? Welll what the ,

I'll post. How far down range am I on this post tonight? Is Obama already elected?

1240 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:30:00pm

re: #1232 Promethea

re: #1178 Adina in Judea

If the research was promising, they wouldn't need Federal money to do it.

They ask for Federal money (and demonize conservatives for not wanting Federal money to do it) because Federal money is a big, huge give-away that they want.

They act as if Christopher Reeve would have walked if only Federal money would have been provided for this research. It's not true.

When I point this out to liberals, I get the eyeroll. Why do these fools think that the FEDERAL government has to do everything. When did the federal government become the source of all knowledge? I must have been on vacation that day.

Social progressives are very good at lying about this.

They make the argument that conservatives didn't want Christopher Reeve to walk again although they (social progressives) could have made it happen if only they'd gotten money from the Federal government. It's an emotional argument that plays well, but it's totally untrue.

Their lies are effective in this one. We've got to work on it more.

1241 NY Nana  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:30:12pm

re: #1184 Adina in Judea

What you said.

1242 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:30:56pm

re: #1234 Adina in Judea

I'm sure she's competent, that is not the source of my questioning the republican's choice of her. There are levels of competence, that are typically achieved with experience (not just time, but the type of experience matters also). I think she was not ready, and that she was chosen cynically to pander to a certain voter bloc. It was as though the qualifications for the job position took second seat; which belied a chronic case of myopia.

1243 Catttt  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:31:15pm

re: #1227 Dan G.

I didn't vote for Obama, nice try. Do you honestly think that McCain would have been less lefty? Even after HIS calls for service (following 9/11), and HIS sponsorship of McCain Feingold? I'll vote for the latter of your explanations.

If I may ask, whom did you vote for? Were you talking about local/state races then? Your comments above are bit hard to understand, and I see I'm not the only one having trouble deciphering them.

I think Senator McCain is much less "lefty" than Senator Obama. Senator McCain was not my first - or fifth - choice, but he is not a lefty.

Again, I don't understand all your comments. What does "I'll vote for the latter of your explanations" mean?

Are you drinking? Remember the Iron Fist rule.

1244 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:32:13pm

re: #1152 Dan G.
Uh, how is it that Repubicans gave up lack of fiscal conservative policy etc...) when it has been the Dem controlled CONGRESS that's been spending money and NOT providing the Congressional Oversight for the last 2 years? I mean, other than funding to fight two wars contemporaneoulsy, dealing with the EXPENSIVE aftermath of Katrina and another Hurricane and giving citizens tax cuts, just how did the Republicans throw money around like drunken sailors on leave? Was it all that porkbarrell spending we did (careful here, cause the Dems did waay more of that)? How did the Republican Party become less fiscally conservative than the Democratic Party was and PROMISES TO BE?

1245 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:33:14pm

re: #1181 Sharmuta

Wish you'd been here to say that about 1000 some odd posts ago.

Well, I've been trying to get that idea across for a number of days now.

I cannot stand the supposedly good Conservatives who feel Sarah Palin was somehow too declasse for the GOP. I cannot stand the Republican elected officials who think that their incumbencies could be guaranteed with pork and programs. I cannot stand the Republicans who are too embarrassed to be associated with people who think that human beings can have civil rights worth protecting even while still in the womb -- not that those Republicans must or should think that same way, but that they're horribly embarrassed to be in the same Party with those who do.

The Party should be a big tent, inclusive of everyone who follows the principles you set out and who's willing to be tolerant of all who do, whether they're pro-life, pro-choice, anti- or pro-gay marriage.

1246 Racer X  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:33:19pm

re: #1229 Dan G.

So, Palin was chosen for her experience?

Yes. She has more executive experience than the other three combined. 84% approval rating. Woman. Religion was way down on the list.

So its the democrats' fault that Bush tried to appease them? Twisted.

Not the democrats fault, Bush failed by trying to appease them. Lets give them the keys!

"censorious republicans" McCain-Feingold

Campaign finance reform is censorship?

Oil is more important to you than the threat these nations pose? Huh?

No, it is not. And these two countries are the largest exporters of terrorism on the planet, bar none. But attacking them outright will simply fuel the fire. Subtlety is in order. Covert operations to destabilize their regime would be a better use of our resources.

1247 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:33:38pm

re: #1174 Dan G.

Just because they failed doesn't mean they didn't try. What's more, the lack of backbone on fiscal issues was due to the fact that the religious right doesn't actually value fiscal restraint etc... they'll say they are, but those positions are just a means to an end. What's more, you don't think that the decision to go with Palin (after much complaining about Obama's lack of experience) was religious right-based decision?

Uh, dude? You honestly don't think Sarah Palin's decade of executive governing experience trumps Obama's decade of (weak) legislative experience? She got that AL-Canada pipeline deal done; all her predecessors had failed.

Who cares if Sarah Palin appeals to religious people? She never governed that way. She crusaded against waste and corruption, not for abortion bans or religious litmus tests.

You sound like an anti-religion bigot, just like Killgore Trout and his parents.

And I'm agnostic, pro-choice, pro-science, and pro-gay rights...and was comfortable with Palin as the VP nominee. If, God forbid, something had happened to John McCain early on, she would have been a credible Commander in Chief--her son is enlisted in the Army and serving in Iraq, and she is quite familiar with our first line of defense against Russian military mischief since she commanded the Alaska National Guard.

1248 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:34:28pm

re: #1243 Cattt

I think Senator McCain is much less "lefty" than Senator Obama [...] but he is not a lefty.

Based on this glaring contradiction in the span of one sentence, I'll not address anything else you've said.

1249 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:34:50pm

re: #1244 realwest

VETO. That's how.

1250 Syrah  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:35:11pm

re: #1225 Dan G.

I don't think that the circular firing squad is an apt metaphor for what's going on here (at least what I'm trying to do). It is simply feedback, this is what went wrong, and this is why this political coalition is essentially over. I will not work with individuals who do not have individual rights and all that follows (good fiscal policiy, individual responsibility, small precisely defined govn't actions, etc...) as the CORE values. Consider it a sign of respect that people are going to the trouble to explain why they're fed up; they could've just left and left y'all guessing.

Dan, part of the problem with this stuff is that it is what happens after a Party gets its ass handed to them as the Republicans have this election.

The various factions start pointing fingers, yelling and shouting, pushing and shoving and eventually start throwing fists at each other in the parking lot outside.

Its normal. Its natural.

In three and a half months, we will reluctantly come together, cut, bruised and bloodied, and decide that we have more to lose on our own then together united in common cause on a few things that we can agree on.

We will still argue and fight, but we will understand better which side we are on.

Some who have been with us will leave, as will some who have been against us will join with us.

Stasis is only for the dead.

The Party will adjust. If it does not, it will go the way of the Whigs and be replaced by another.

A thousand years from now, historians will wonder at the vitriol and animosity that we are showing towards one another, and marvel at how easily detracted we were/are to our common perils.

We will survive this.

1251 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:35:53pm

re: #1235 Dan G.

Abortion is completely moral. Sacrificing an existing individual to a potential one is not moral and to try and force such a situation would be an egregious infraction of individual rights.

Just playing devil's advocate here. I'm guessing that the overwhelming majority of abortions don't involve the dilemma of sacrificing the mother for the newborn. And, since, as you say, it's a moral choice, is not religion a doctrine of morals? Which is why I see merit in

#1196 stuiec

By the way, isn't the argument that an embryo or fetus is only a clump of cells at its core a religious argument? Why is Dr. Hsieh's religious view okay to shove down everyone's throat through Roe v. Wade, but any other religious view not similarly privileged?

Just asking.

1252 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:36:45pm

re: #1167 zombie
Um actually it's down the Canyon of Heros (lower Broadway) and I've actually helped organize one so if you'd like some assistance in that regard, I volunteer!

1253 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:37:02pm

re: #1247 funky chicken

Dude, as though she was the only choice and that choosing her didn't reveal how un-seriously the McCain campaign took the process. She might have more experience than Obama, but I'm sure there was an entire list of individuals whose experience trumped both.

1254 nightwatch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:37:16pm

re: #1246 Racer X

Excellent point and concur with military construct... not done yet!

1255 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:38:05pm

re: #1242 Dan G.

re: #1234 Adina in Judea

I'm sure she's competent, that is not the source of my questioning the republican's choice of her. There are levels of competence, that are typically achieved with experience (not just time, but the type of experience matters also). I think she was not ready, and that she was chosen cynically to pander to a certain voter bloc. It was as though the qualifications for the job position took second seat; which belied a chronic case of myopia.

In the recent election, there were three U.S. Senators running and one Governor.

The last time a U.S. Senator won the Presidency was almost 50 years ago.

Governors win the Presidency most often because they are the most experienced at being executives.

Sarah Palin was the only Governor in the recent Presidential election.

How many ways does this need to be spelled out to you?

1256 kynna  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:39:43pm

re: #1225 Dan G.

I don't think that the circular firing squad is an apt metaphor for what's going on here (at least what I'm trying to do). It is simply feedback, this is what went wrong, and this is why this political coalition is essentially over. I will not work with individuals who do not have individual rights and all that follows (good fiscal policiy, individual responsibility, small precisely defined govn't actions, etc...) as the CORE values. Consider it a sign of respect that people are going to the trouble to explain why they're fed up; they could've just left and left y'all guessing.

But what if you're wrong? The evidence doesn't add up for your accusation of religious right meddling. Why should anyone follow in lockstep when all you've got is a personal opinion that isn't backed up by the facts?

That's why this commentary ticks me off. Just like it was assumed that mentioning Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter would turn off the legendary religious right I don't think the people who care so much about that group even know who or what that group is.

So Paul Hsieh is 'turned off' by a religious right that didn't even have anything to do with the Republican agenda in this election and therefore he voted for a Marxist to teach this religious right a lesson.

Sounds like a great plan to me. I've gotta follow this guy's plan for success! ///

1257 aLohaTim  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:39:57pm

I keep reading nonsense about social conservatives being to blame and just like this gentleman they point to banning gay marriage as an example. Yet every time a state votes to affirm marriage should be between a man and woman it passes. Yup those damn social conservatives!

How dare these prolifers try to tell other people what they can do with unborn children. What gives them the right to force us to give unborn children "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Instead, the government’s role is to protect each person’s right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party’s embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous.

No sir that's not what the establishment clause is for. Since when is having a vote to affirm traditional marriage forcibly imposing. Or a vote to ban abortion. Oh wait. We can't have a vote to ban abortion because 9 guys in black robes created a "right to privacy" out of whole cloth.

Now this guy may truly believe this fantasy about the religious right but I think the Republicans lost because they became Democrats Lite.
President Bush's Compassionate Conservatives just meant spending a little less than the Democrats would have for the same thing.

1258 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:41:29pm

re: #1245 stuiec

Well, I've been trying to get that idea across for a number of days now.

I cannot stand the supposedly good Conservatives who feel Sarah Palin was somehow too declasse for the GOP. I cannot stand the Republican elected officials who think that their incumbencies could be guaranteed with pork and programs. I cannot stand the Republicans who are too embarrassed to be associated with people who think that human beings can have civil rights worth protecting even while still in the womb -- not that those Republicans must or should think that same way, but that they're horribly embarrassed to be in the same Party with those who do.

The Party should be a big tent, inclusive of everyone who follows the principles you set out and who's willing to be tolerant of all who do, whether they're pro-life, pro-choice, anti- or pro-gay marriage.

I agree- and with funky chicken too. I liked Sarah. But I'm pro-science and pro-gay too.

I really feel the more religious among us should ask themselves where the impact would be better spent. Personally- I think it's through church that they should put these energies. Making a real difference where it matters instead of pushing government. Would an hour at a pro-life crisis pregnancy center do more good, or lobbying Congress for a ban? Do we really think government can change hearts? Conservatives would clearly answer "no".

1259 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:41:30pm

re: #1252 realwest

Um actually it's down the Canyon of Heros (lower Broadway) and I've actually helped organize one so if you'd like some assistance in that regard, I volunteer!

I wish someone would! Unfortunately, it would have to be entirely of their own initiative, since I know very little about NY, know no one there, and have no connections!

1260 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:41:34pm

re: #1174 Dan G.

Just because they failed doesn't mean they didn't try. What's more, the lack of backbone on fiscal issues was due to the fact that the religious right doesn't actually value fiscal restraint etc... they'll say they are, but those positions are just a means to an end. What's more, you don't think that the decision to go with Palin (after much complaining about Obama's lack of experience) was religious right-based decision?

The lack of backbone on fiscal issues was pure and simple pork-barrel politics. Too many Republicans figured to buy perpetual re-election, rather than actually work for their constituents' trust and respect.

And Palin was a perfectly fine VP pick. As others have said, she far outclassed Obama on executive experience, and her track record in government was as a reformer and an opponent of corrupt politics in both parties, not at all as a religious zealot.

I am sorry that you're embarrassed by people on the Religious Right, or frightened that they will sweep you up in the clutches of a new Inquisition. You spend your time being worried about them taking over the govenrment of the USA, and I'll spend my time about the Left-loonies who actually HAVE taken over the government of the USA.

1261 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:43:36pm

re: #1209 Dan G.

It doesn't have to be the primary focus of the campaign message.. what do you, like the leftists, think that voters can only think in terms of the information that is spoon-fed them? Are you going to deny that the religious right in Colorado tried a ballot initiative to define that life begins a conception?

So what if it wasn't made a focus, the facts are still there behind the polished PR made image.

So you think that people of the Religious Right have no right to propose ballot propositions or to campaign for candidates and causes they believe in?

You sound like you see Religious Right conspiracies behind every tree, bush and rock.

1262 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:43:48pm

re: #1174 Dan G.
Respectfully, no I don't. Govenor Palin - even Mayor Palin, had far, FAR more executive experience (ya know, figuring out the needs of the town of state, creating a budget for those needs, finding the funds for that budget, appointing administrative personnel for executive agencies and the like and then supervising the spending of that budgeted money and supervising those government agencies) than did Obama, or Biden or for that matter, McCain. Oh and before you go "Feh, it's only Alaska" Alaska has a budget in excess of $25,000,000 and more than 24,000 employees and has not asked the Federal government to bail out the state, the way California has, NY is planning to do and other "Blue States" will do shortly.

1263 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:44:16pm

re: #1251 solomonpanting

One can be moral and not religious. Religion is philosophy with mystical metaphysics. There are other philosophies without the the mysticism (making them not religion) and they have ethics/morals.

Its not a numbers game (i.e. whether the majority of cases are that way or not). Perhaps, sacrifice wasn't the right word to convey what I'm trying to say (I don't mean loss of life, necessarily; I would include time, money, effort, discomfort, risk, etc...). Until the potential-human is an individual, it is a part of the woman's body. One owns oneself per individual rights, and as such a woman can dispose of the growth in her uterus as she see's fit. Once the umbilical cord is cut and that newborn infant screams, a new individual replete with individual rights has entered the world; and its a whole different ballgame.

1264 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:45:12pm

re: #1255 Adina in Judea

Ummm... she wasn't the only one McCain had to choose from; how many times to I need to spell this out?

1265 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:45:37pm

re: #1209 Dan G.

Are you going to deny that the religious right in Colorado tried a ballot initiative to define that life begins a conception

Was that on the ballot this year? That could well have lost the election for Shaffer and McCain/Palin.

BUT your assertion that you wanted McCain to lose because the GOP spent too much money is just foolish. McCain has been the most visible (and despised by his GOP colleagues) warrior against that immoral spending over the last 20 years.

You say that issue is huge for you, but still punish the guy who has fought that battle over and over again. Not to be a broken record, but you are just as confused as the pro-life Catholics who stampeded to the polls to vote for Obama.

1266 nightwatch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:46:20pm

re: #1244 real west

Just got played by the RHINOS and played how to say...BETRAYED?
The numbers tell the tail, we were bought and SOLD OUT by the war hero
with a SOFT spot for the gang of 14...I would say something more but...

1267 Racer X  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:47:37pm

re: #1263 Dan G.

One owns oneself per individual rights, and as such a woman can dispose of the growth in her uterus as she see's fit.


You may be right.

I had a friend who "disposed of the growth". She cried for days.

1268 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:48:11pm

re: #1256 kynna

I have no facts? Just because you say so? So are you saying that Bush did veto all of the extraordinary spending? That he and his advisers didn't pen the bill nationalizing the banking and insurance industries? That the republicans voted against the first bail out but acquiesced after it was loaded with pork? No facts? Are you blind or just a lying shill?

1269 kynna  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:48:43pm

re: #1263 Dan G.

One can be moral and not religious. Religion is philosophy with mystical metaphysics. There are other philosophies without the the mysticism (making them not religion) and they have ethics/morals.

Its not a numbers game (i.e. whether the majority of cases are that way or not). Perhaps, sacrifice wasn't the right word to convey what I'm trying to say (I don't mean loss of life, necessarily; I would include time, money, effort, discomfort, risk, etc...). Until the potential-human is an individual, it is a part of the woman's body. One owns oneself per individual rights, and as such a woman can dispose of the growth in her uterus as she see's fit. Once the umbilical cord is cut and that newborn infant screams, a new individual replete with individual rights has entered the world; and its a whole different ballgame.

Having actually been pregnant a time or two, I can say that you don't know what you're talking about. The child moves independently of the mother. The child's heart is beating (when is stopping a beating heart not killing? Hmmm. Think on that), the child has many behaviors in the womb that are not influenced by the activities of the mother.

It is a separate entity being hosted inside the womb of a woman. A woman who doesn't ever have to get pregnant in this day and age.

A growth? Give me a break.

1270 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:48:57pm

re: #1258 Sharmuta

I agree- and with funky chicken too. I liked Sarah. But I'm pro-science and pro-gay too.

I really feel the more religious among us should ask themselves where the impact would be better spent. Personally- I think it's through church that they should put these energies. Making a real difference where it matters instead of pushing government. Would an hour at a pro-life crisis pregnancy center do more good, or lobbying Congress for a ban? Do we really think government can change hearts? Conservatives would clearly answer "no".

Except that I can sympathize with the effort to prevent government from advocating in the opposite direction. I don't understand how it is, for example, that every medical decision regarding my minor daughter requires parental informed consent EXCEPT her sexual health. I don't understand how it is that governments can prohibit rather than require fully disclosing to women what the physical procedure of abortion involves both for the mother and the unborn child. And I don't understand why these particular issues are not a suitable matter for political action -- maybe not a requirement for the Republican Party platform, but still a valid area for concerned citizens to organize and effect political change.

1271 Dan G.  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:49:29pm

No resolving this tonight, these are my reasons; take 'em or leave 'em.

Nite all.

1272 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:49:32pm

re: #1263 Dan G.

Until the potential-human is an individual, it is a part of the woman's body. One owns oneself per individual rights, and as such a woman can dispose of the growth in her uterus as she see's fit. Once the umbilical cord is cut and that newborn infant screams, a new individual replete with individual rights has entered the world; and its a whole different ballgame.

According to science - zygotes, embryos and fetuses are the youngest possible forms of human beings. They aren't potential human beings. They are entirely and exclusively human beings (in a purely scientific sense.)

Calling them clumps, cheek cells or limbs is self-serving disingenuous nonsense.

1273 solomonpanting  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:50:34pm

re: #1263 Dan G.

Until the potential-human is an individual, it is a part of the woman's body. One owns oneself per individual rights, and as such a woman can dispose of the growth in her uterus as she see's fit. Once the umbilical cord is cut and that newborn infant screams, a new individual replete with individual rights has entered the world; and its a whole different ballgame

Tell that to Laci Peterson.

1274 nightwatch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:50:46pm

re: #1267 Racer X

A woman's right to choose her own conscious and all the baggage there in weighted... go ahead...ask the WOMAN, but what about the MAN?

1275 kynna  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:51:28pm

re: #1268 Dan G.

I'm talking about Paul Hsieh's accusation that the 'social conservatives' caused the Republicans to lose. I've already said that the expansion of government is the main reason for the loss and 'social conservative' bashing is a stupid distraction.

I stand by my comments.

1276 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:54:16pm

re: #1264 Dan G.

re: #1255 Adina in Judea

Ummm... she wasn't the only one McCain had to choose from; how many times to I need to spell this out?

Sarah Palin had the most charisma of any possible choice that McCain had.

She is an incredibly charismatic person who also has conservative ideals.

She was the best possible choice that McCain could have made.

1277 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:55:07pm

re: #1259 zombie
OK - then would you want to help me? No lie, I helped organize the May 7, 1985 Welcome Home Parade for Vietnam Veterans across the Brooklyn Bridge and down the Canyon of Heros.
I'd be honored to do the same for these brave troops.

1278 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:55:29pm

re: #1269 kynna

Having actually been pregnant a time or two, I can say that you don't know what you're talking about. The child moves independently of the mother. The child's heart is beating (when is stopping a beating heart not killing? Hmmm. Think on that), the child has many behaviors in the womb that are not influenced by the activities of the mother.

It is a separate entity being hosted inside the womb of a woman. A woman who doesn't ever have to get pregnant in this day and age.

A growth? Give me a break.

My wife being a registered nurse who has attended at abortions, where she's had to catch the living fetus, put it in the specimen bucket and then wait to see if it draws a breath on its own before deciding if it's a patient or a piece of medical waste, I know he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Further, the idea that a woman owns the child within her is very close to a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment: a fetus is genetically distinct from his or her mother, not a part of her body, and thus is no more her property than her live-borne children or any other person.

1279 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:56:50pm

re: #1278 stuiec

Further, the idea that a woman owns the child within her is very close to a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment: a fetus is genetically distinct from his or her mother, not a part of her body, and thus is no more her property than her live-borne children or any other person.

Excellent post!

1280 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:56:57pm

good night everybody

I still think McCain sees Palin as the new Teddy Roosevelt...since Teddy R is McCain's political hero, it's high praise.

I happen to think he's got a better than 50/50 chance at being right, but because people refused to vote for McCain/Palin, she likely won't prove it until after Senator McCain has passed away. That's a damn shame.

1281 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:56:59pm

re: #1262 realwest
PIMF $25,000,000,000.00

1282 nightwatch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:57:19pm

Well since this thread is ..oppps there is RealWest...gotta go mark my tree

1283 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:58:03pm

re: #1281 realwest

re: #1262 realwest
PIMF $25,000,000,000.00

We knew what you meant, realwest!

{realwest}

1284 nightwatch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 10:58:42pm

re: #1281 realwest

How ya feeling?

1285 realwest  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:00:09pm

Well all y'all it's been a very interesting night but I've gotta go get some sleep NOW! LOL!
I hope you all have a GREAT EVENING/EARLY MORNING and that I get the chance to see you all down the road.

Good night, all.

1286 zombie  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:00:42pm

re: #1277 realwest

OK - then would you want to help me? No lie, I helped organize the May 7, 1985 Welcome Home Parade for Vietnam Veterans across the Brooklyn Bridge and down the Canyon of Heros.
I'd be honored to do the same for these brave troops.

Wow. Well, here's the deal. I have added your name to the list of people to contact should this thing get some real traction. If, say, a couple days from now, it's really starting to take off, and the idea of an actual parade starts being discussed, I will connect you up with the appropriate people.

HOWEVER, since November 22 is now only five days away, and I'm pretty sure the permitting process for setting up a parade takes months of advance planning, the likelihood of this celebration being anything other than an online celebration are pretty slim.

Thanks for the offer, however it turns out!

1287 nightwatch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:01:12pm

re: #1285 realwest

G'night to ya then...

1288 stuiec  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:03:08pm

re: #1219 Racer X

re: #1211 Dan G.

Definitions found through science isn't religion... nice try.

Hmm... where is the definition through science that establishes the bright line when a fetus becomes a viable human being?

If you define that bright line at when the baby takes its first breath of air, you're as guilty of an unscientific religion-based definition as those who claim the bright line is at conception.

Your conviction that the definition is completely divorced from religion is in fact a religious conviction -- or, if you prefer, a conviction based on your religious view that others' religions are incorrect.

1289 nightwatch  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:05:33pm

re: #1286 zombie
Am I ...well what the hell is that term..."HAZ-MAT?"

Be frank...or Dino or maybe...Sammy?

1290 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:07:26pm

re: #1288 stuiec

Your conviction that the definition is completely divorced from religion is in fact a religious conviction -- or, if you prefer, a conviction based on your religious view that others' religions are incorrect.

His 'religious view' is that a very young human being isn't a human being until his/her mother wants the young human being to be born and/or until his/her mother isn't in a position to kill him/her anymore.

He wants a license to kill an innocent human being until the very last minute.

Shameful, eh?

1291 Mr. Beamish  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:13:29pm

After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, “Why did we lose?”

In an effort to demonstrate the bipartisan direction John McCain wanted to lead the Republican Party, many Republicans voted for Barack Obama.

I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.

Get Jesus some fireworks. Who can compete with the Messiah Obama?

I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

All of which are also championed by the so-called "Religious Right."

But I didn’t vote for a single Republican in 2008. I’ve become increasingly alienated by the Republicans“ embrace of the religious ”social conservative“ agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

Abortion and embryonic stem cell research pose ethical considerations that do not require religiosity whatsoever, as both entail the destruction of humans not tall enough to have civil rights. Gay men can marry gay women, same as straight men can marry straight women. Gay men can even marry straight women, sure as gay women can marry straight men. Gay marriage, or rather "same sex marriage" is an oxymoron with over 10,000 years of social mores and traditions keeping it in that category.

The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a ”wall of separation“ between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.

Yes. While we're at it, let's throw out all those nuisance bible-thumper mandates against murder. I mean, why should it only be legal to kill humans you need a magnifying glass to see?

Instead, the government’s role is to protect each person’s right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party’s embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous.

Hmm. If only we'd not fought the eugenicist premises behind the continously direct marketed abortion industry to inner city minorities so much over the last 35 years, Obama might not have had as large of a base.

Oh wait, we're the dangerous ones.

Go be a Democrat, you twit.

1292 Salem  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:14:16pm

Meanwhile back in the year One --- when you belonged to no-one ---
you didn't stand a chance son, if your pants were undone.
`Cause you were bred for humanity and sold to society ---
one day you'll wake up in the Present Day ---
a million generations removed from expectations
of being who you really want to be.

Skating away ---
skating away ---
skating away on the thin ice of the New Day.

So as you push off from the shore,
won't you turn your head once more --- and make your peace with everyone?
For those who choose to stay,
will live just one more day ---
to do the things they should have done.
And as you cross the wilderness, spinning in your emptiness:
you feel you have to pray.
Looking for a sign
that the Universal Mind has written you into the Passion Play.

Skating away on the thin ice of the New Day.

And as you cross the circle line, the ice-wall creaks behind ---
you're a rabbit on the run.
And the silver splinters fly in the corner of your eye ---
shining in the setting sun.
Well, do you ever get the feeling that the story's
too damn real and in the present tense?
Or that everybody's on the stage, and it seems like
you're the only person sitting in the audience?

Skating away on the thin ice of the New Day.

1293 Killian Bundy  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:16:49pm

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Gross $7,690,545 (USA) (six weeks)

Religulous
Gross $12,125,806 (USA) (five weeks, still in theatres)

/don't tell me the "Religious Right" is a threat to this country

1294 SteveRogers  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:36:04pm

Funny, President Bush embraced the "Christian Right" far more than McCain did.
Sounds like this guy is just tryin' to assauge his guilt for turning on the GOP with a reason that isn't consistent.

If he was going to vote fore Democrats he should have, bnased on his own reasons, voted for Gore and Kerry, because Bush was far closer to the Christian Right than McCain.

I wonder how many voters stayed home because McCain was too moderate to liberal?
Much of this second guessing why we lost the election has virtually nothing to do with the Religious Right.

The RR have lost a lot of power and influence since the 80's and 90's, and had very little impact on this election.
The question is, who does that leave?

McCain lost for several reasons. Not aggressive enough (he went after Romney but he was afraid of Obama). Too scared of being labelled a racist.
An inept campaign staff. Lack of communication.
Years of poking the conservatives in the eye.
McCain/Feingold. No grasp of the truth concerning the economy or an unwillingness to say who caused this recession and why.
Embracing the global warming BS and cap and trade was another big mistake.

Let's face it, McCain ran a crappy campaign, period.
There's lot's of things that some socons do that piss me off, but objectively, they had nothing to do with McCain's loss to Obama.

Except for foreign policy there wasn't a huge difference between McCain and Obama. Unfortunately, most voters don't seem to care about foreign policy right now.
We have been safe since 9/11 and a lot of voters take that for granted now. They don't see the threat of Islamofascism anymore.
Lack. Of. Communication. By The GOP.
And apparently, no one believes that Iran will develope nuclear weapons let alone use them.

I sincerely hope that we don't find out the hard way that they will.

1295 blbfootballs  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:38:39pm

I find this line of argument very uncompelling. "Banning" abortion? All that most conservatives/Constitutionalists seek is the overturning of the absurd Roe v. Wade decision which declared blanket approval over all abortions, and let the voters of the country and each state to decide the boundaries of legal abortion. (And conservatives know that the majority of states will choose to preserve the legality of the majority of abortions).

The embryonic stem cell research question has only to do with federal funding of the research -- any private lab can do that research on its own. The avoidance of federal funding is acknowledged by its supporters as largely little more, or less, than a declaration of values that governments and scientists should tread very carefully around the issue of exploiting human life for medical and scientific benefit (cf. Charles Krauthammer). The same policy is followed by Germany, hardly a fortress of the "Religious Right" -- just a place with foul memories of what Westerners can do when they remove moral boundaries from the practice of "science".

The issue of "gay marriage" has to with which the question of how marriage is defined by society and government. Sorry to Dr. Hsieh, but marriage has been universally defined (about as far back as we can find) as the union of man and a woman. The gay activist movement wants to change the definition -- that means the burden is on them to prove why marriage needs to be redefined and why the rest of society should accept it. It's hardly "radical" to believe that we should maintain the integrity of society's primary, primal institution. (Do you even need to be "religious" to believe that?)

It is radical to demand that a redefinition take place -- and the failure of gay activists to win this redefinition democratically, and their resort to sympathetic judges to impose the redefinition upon the rest of society, is but the most obvious indication of the activists' radicalism.

I think Dr. Hsieh has bought into a chimera that is largely a creation of the media -- the Republicans are factually not doing the things he supposes they are, and what they are doing is simply not "radical" at all. And John McCain for his part was as left-wing a Republican as one could ever hope for. In an election in which the leadership of the free world during a particularly dangerous time was at stake, and the American economy poised between well-documented approaches of growth and failure, I find Hsieh's logic not only unconvincing but irresponsible.

1296 Adina in Judea  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:41:34pm

re: #1295 blbfootballs

Excellent post!

1297 combatwombat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:43:01pm

I'll just add that it's a tad disconcerting to see fellow Republicans demonizing the "religious right" in almost exactly the same manner as Kossacks; i.e. "these people want to ban gay marriage and abortion so OBVIOUSLY they're just champing at the bit to declare Christianity the official state religion, burn atheists alive and replace the entire Constitution with the Book of Leviticus."

1298 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:44:02pm

re: #1295 blbfootballs

I find this line of argument very uncompelling. "Banning" abortion? All that most conservatives/Constitutionalists seek is the overturning of the absurd Roe v. Wade decision which declared blanket approval over all abortions, and let the voters of the country and each state to decide the boundaries of legal abortion. (And conservatives know that the majority of states will choose to preserve the legality of the majority of abortions).

A constitutional ban on abortions is a plank of the platform.

1299 combatwombat  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:49:52pm

Here's the thing: I love capitalism and fiscal conservatism. But check this out: Your text to link...

If you can look at that and think it's acceptable to take that thing, crush its skull and suck out its brains, under any circumstances, then I just don't know what to say. I love capitalism to death and hate socialism as much as the next guy, but I refuse to be a part of any organization that is OK with killing what is pictured there.

1300 jordash1212  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:57:13pm

He didn't just alienate the not-so-religious people. He alienated us, the students, the youth. And so I can completely understand this article, though I know the republican party had to make a tough decision, and who knows? I can only hope that the republican party moves into a bit more centrist. There are too many people they lost votes from that are socially liberal and fiscally and politically conservative. These are the kinds of people you find in key states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc.

1301 blbfootballs  Sun, Nov 16, 2008 11:58:43pm

re: #1298 Sharmuta

A constitutional ban on abortions is a plank of the platform.

That is not accurate. Read the platform. They support legislation that endorses 14th Amendment protections applying to the unborn. It's an interesting approach Constitutionally... I'm dubious about its strength, but its certainly defensible.

Conservatives (both social and Constitutional) are less angry about the legality of abortion than by the Supreme Court's magical generation of a "Constitutional" right to abortion. Before anything else, Roe v. Wade is just bad law. It's awful law.

They know that most states will vote to keep most abortions legal -- but unlike a Court dictat, those votes will take place fairly and democratically and each side will have the power to speak publicly and make their position known and then let the citizens decide which way to go. Conservatives are OK with that process. (Gay activists, as a contrasting example, are not.)

I think it's also fair to ask what the Framers of the Constitution would have said if they were asked whether abortion on demand should be a Constitutional "right" -- and I think we know what almost all of them would have said. Were they just old fuddy-duddies? Or did they have a respect for the beauty and value of life that we should consider for a few minutes when we think about this issue?

1302 SteveRogers  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:00:24am

It's clearly obvious that Republicans are either for a culture of death or a culture of life.
We already know what the Democrats are for.

Murderers on death row and even terrorists have more rights and representation than unborn humans.
This isn't just a "religious" issue.
Without life there is no liberty. What some on the Right want is liberty without responsibility to respect unborn life. Slippery slope.

It's clear what our Founding Fathers thought about the importance of life. You know, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If some Republicans want to deny that truth or say it doesn't matter then at least be honest about it.

When "self evident truth's" are no longer self evident to Republicans, than we are basically no different than Democrats. Irt becomes the choice between a slow descent into socialism or a quick one.
How's that working in Europe and Canada?
Even I, an agnostic leaning towards deism, can see that.

1303 funky chicken  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:05:27am

re: #1231 NY Nana

great comment

1304 Steve in Philly  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:09:09am

I'm an objectivist who would have voted for Obama, if I could have stomached it. I absolutely refused to vote for McCain. Republicans are still perceived, albeit wrongly of late, as proponents of free markets and capitalism. That is a heritage they have completely betrayed in the Bush presidency. Between the massive government takeovers in the drug and financial industries, the out-of-control spending and regulation, and the calls for "compassionate conservatism" (i.e. altruistic, you-are-your-brother's-keeper nonsense that now includes calls for national service), they have become nearly indistinguishable from the leftists they claim to loathe.

The Republican Party needs to be taught a lesson that voters will not stand for this kind of behavior; nor will they stand for religious-based policies being pushed down their throats. When they learn that lesson I may vote for them again. In the meantime it is far better to have the self-declared leftists/socialists running the country under these abhorrent policies, rather than have the supposed representatives of capitalism doing so, and in the process completely destroying the meaning of free markets and liberty.

1305 h0mi  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:12:41am
I’ve become increasingly alienated by the Republicans“ embrace of the religious ”social conservative“ agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

I made a comment on AOS and Patterico's blogs about this. Here's the thing.

In the last 3 elections where the GOP lost, we saw a pro-life candidate lose. I'm not saying that the candidate lost because of abortion or that the GOP needs to become pro-life, but it seems to me that the GOP has a tendency of ignoring or throwing under the bus any and every other issue important to conservatives save for abortion, and they continue to believe that "as long as they are pro-life, that's enough". The election of presidents Clinton and Obama should make it abundantly clear that it isn't enough.

Don't nominate a republican who only has pro-life credentials to his (or her) name and believe it's all that's needed to win. Americans are willing to elect pro life candidates but it's not enough.

1306 Adina in Judea  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:15:08am

re: #1304 Steve in Philly

The Republican Party needs to be taught a lesson...

In the meantime it is far better to have the self-declared leftists/socialists running the country under these abhorrent policies, rather than have the supposed representatives of capitalism doing so, and in the process completely destroying the meaning of free markets and liberty.

So, you want to see the country damaged by Obama in ways that it may take generations to overcome as a way to send a message to Republicans?

Try writing a letter instead.

1307 Adina in Judea  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:18:56am

re: #1305 h0mi

In the last 3 elections where the GOP lost, we saw a pro-life candidate lose.

In all the elections that the GOP has won in the last 30 years or so, we saw these pro-life candidates win.

McCain wasn't chosen as the candidate this year because he's pro-life.

The more conservative candidates had their votes split between them.

McCain was one of the least conservative candidates of the entire bunch.

Don't blame it on his being pro-life. It had nothing to do with his nomination.

1308 [deleted]  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:20:34am
1309 SteveRogers  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:23:33am

re: #1304 Steve in Philly

Bravo. I'm sure your children will appreciate tye "lesson" you taught the Republicans with a socialist President.

Yeah, many Republicans have lost there way, but I doubt that damaging our country is the way to make things right. Vote for better Republicans, write letters, get involved yourself if need be, but please don't tell me that electing Obama will help.

There will always be Republicans that are idiots.
Just as there's Democrats who are idiots. Do you see the Left voting for Republicans because they aren't happy with their candidates?
Sheesh!

1310 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:35:48am

I just realized I'd made a mistake- it was the 1992 election with Perot, not 96. So- this issues with fisc-cons has been going on for 16 years.

1311 Steve in Philly  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:38:10am

Obama is a necessary evil, if we are ever going to have a chance of eliminating the statist/facist tendencies of the Republican Party. Really, how much worse will Obama be than Bush has been, and McCain would have been? Under Bush, government spending rose to levels undreamed of by any previous Democratic regime. With his Medicare drug program, Bush was responsible for instituting the biggest new government social spending program since Johnson. McCain was issuing calls for government service just as Obama was, and he was every bit as vocal as Obama in denouncing the "evil businessmen" of Wall Street for destroying the economy. They both voted for the absolute travesty of the bailout program for the financial industry, and both claimed that even more bailouts would be necessary.

McCain was supposed to be a friend of free markets and capitalism; to the extent that the public perceive him, Bush, and the Republicans as being so, it gives the opponents of freedom an unending supply of ammunition to show that capitalism is a failure. It is far better to have these policies properly identified as belonging to the fascist/socialist liberals than the supposedly capitalistic Republicans.

1312 Steve in Philly  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:39:33am

And of course, I forgot to mention McCain's eco-friendly policies that put him in the same camp as Al Gore. Yes, McCain would have been so much better at preserving our freedoms than Obama.

1313 ChicagoJohn  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:41:04am

re: #1295 blbfootballs

Oh man. You completely stole my thunder by making all of the right points.
Republicans didn't ban abortion. If they did (or tried) then my 'pro-choice' stance might have something to argue with them on.
It did annoy me to see a doctor claim that abortion was getting rid of a clump of cells. Really? I know a few women who had them, and they didn't think of what was happening as getting rid of clumps of cells.

Yes, I'm with Republicans when it comes to the definition of marriage. But not because I hate gay people. Its because I believe that religious people should be able to have their institutions without the government telling them that they need to change those institutions to be more 'diverse'.
There's one fundatmental flaw that I find with people who push gay marriage. They admit that marriage is primarily a religous construct. But then they want the government to redefine that religious construct, even though they fully admit that they don't subscribe to any other part of it.
Argggh.
I'm all for civil union laws. But I have a large problem with the minority ruling the majority, particularly when the minority doesn't care for the majority's 'silly' religious dogma... except when they want to get married.

1314 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:41:11am

re: #1311 Steve in Philly

Fascinating perspective. I mean that sincerely.

1315 SteveRogers  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:45:31am

Steve In Philly said-
"Really, how much worse will Obama be than Bush has been, and McCain would have been?"

Look, I hear what you're saying but if Obama gets to do everything he wants to do then he will be a helluva lot worse than Bush or McCain would be.

Hopefully, Obama and the Left will only get 4 years to cause damage.

1316 Steve in Philly  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:53:23am

Believe me, the idea of Obama as president make me ill. I was completely depressed the week after the election. But sometimes short term pain is necessary for long term gain. I take heart in the facts that 1) the Democrats will have limited resources on which to draw to spend on any new programs they might devise, and 2) there are enough Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress to stop any really egregious policies that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate may try to push through.

1317 SteveRogers  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 2:26:59am
1318 Angleton  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 2:30:18am

2 words: Barry Goldwater!

1319 SixDegrees  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 2:41:54am

I completely agree with the sentiments expressed in this article. I have been saying much the same thing for several years now, as I've watched the Republican Party squander majority and leadership on the imposition of religious intolerance while flagrantly ignoring core Conservative principles like limited government and fiscal responsibility. I am hearing much the same thing from many, many Conservatives these days, and it is long past time for such voices.

It's pathetic that the Democrats have actually managed to co-opt large portions of the Conservative platform, such as lower taxes (well, for some, anyway.) That their own agenda runs counter to Conservatism in many respects - socialism in exchange for capitalism; the imposition of a Nanny State in place of personal responsibility; and an overall, long-term weakening of America's power and prestige - is overshadowed by attempts by the religious right to impose their views on everyone else through force of government edict. That this is happening at the very same time we are fighting a war against the Taliban - who believe exactly the same thing, and attempt to impose their will in much the same way - is particularly galling to Conservatives who believe that the most important thing the government ought to do is to BUTT OUT of people's lives to the greatest degree possible.

Conservatives should be working to build and maintain and environment where EVERYONE can live in freedom - which means having the freedom to choose for themselves how to conduct their own affairs, without government intervention. I don't agree that people who hold these religious/political views are social conservatives - I believe they are fundamentally NOT conservatives at all. We need to stand up and loudly proclaim that anyone seeking to impose their own religious views on others through government force are not welcome in our ranks. If this means flushing the religious right down the toilet, so be it.

If the party continues on the road it is currently on, the Democrats will successfully supplant it. They are already winning by fielding candidates with considerably more Conservative views than their watery Republican opponents, minus the religious thuggery espoused the the likes of Limbaugh and DeLay, ala the odious and abyssmal Terry Schiavo episode. We need to be clear that everyone is welcome in the party, except those seeking to use it to leverage the imposition of one particular religion on the rest of us. If they don't like it, they can form their own party and see how far it gets. But if the GOP wants to remain the party of choice for Conservatives, they need to purge these Taliban-wannabees from the ranks.

1320 insane_kufr  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 2:49:29am

the good doctor, while a learned man, steps on it with his Jeffersonian "wall of separation" canard. Ho hum, here's the link :[Link: catholiceducation.org...]

As far as Abortion - how long will it take to bring people to the reality that abortion is M-U-R-D-E-R. The intentional destruction of human life.
How about a wall of separation from baby killing!

1321 I heart the USA  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 3:01:13am

re: #1235 Dan G.

Life? Of the cell, or the organism? Cells with the human genome aren't individual humans, yet. Individuality begins when the INFANT is physically separated from its mother. Its not an issue of alive versus not alive, it is an issue of "individual human being" vs. "dependent potential human being".

Abortion is completely moral. Sacrificing an existing individual to a potential one is not moral and to try and force such a situation would be an egregious infraction of individual rights.

re: #1235 Dan G.

On what or whose authority has it been deemed that separation from the mother's body is what makes us human beings with a right to life? It sure as shit has no basis in scientific fact, or any fact, period. That is just your opinion, spun out of whole cloth in an attempt to justify your belief.

Sorry to intrude on your denial, but unborn humans are individuals - by definition. Their bodies, their organs, their DNA are distinct from their mother's; their physical dependency does not make them less so, nor does their location inside their human incubator. Once a baby is born, is it any less dependent than it was before it travelled through the birth canal? Can it protect itself, nourish itself? No. It is no less dependent and no less an individual than it was in the moments before it emerged from its mother.

If pro-unrestricted abortionists feel that there is nothing morally wrong with abortion, why are you always trying to morally justify it by pushing the lie that the only women who get abortions have been raped, raped by a family member, or in some way have had this decision thrust upon them through no fault of their own? Why must you always portray them as victims when that is only true of a small fraction of women who have abortions? If you truly believe abortion is moral you wouldn't feel it necessary to perpetuate this myth.

1322 Bill Dalasio  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 3:23:22am

While I'm not a particularly religious person, I strongly disagree with the good doctor. Freedom of religion no more implies freedom from relgion than freedom of speech implies freedom from speech. That is the reason the framers both guarateed against the establishment of religion and guaranteed the free exercise of religion.

Moreover, in practical, definable terms, the daily threats to my liberty are not being pushed by religious conservatives. It wasn't religious conservatives who've told me I'm breaking the law if I light up in a bar. It wasn't religious conservatives who've forbidden me from buying food made with trans fats. It wasn't religious conservatives who pushed speech codes on our college campuses and dictate hate crimes laws. It wasn't religious conservatives who've made it a bureaucratic journey to buy a gun to protect my home and family. It isn't religious conservatives I see trying to revive the fairness doctrine to specifically silence their political opposition. It wasn't religious conservatives to gave us "campaign finance reform". It isn't the religious conservatives who have told me that I have to separate my trash, even to the point of removing individual trashcans in my office building.

1323 Lyerlyj  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 4:14:05am

If the coalition between social and economic conservatives breaks down, our nation will be run by Marxists from now on.

1324 Dasher  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 4:22:25am

re: #1323 Lyerlyj

You have that right. The fiscal conservatives had John McCain who voted for the $700 billion bailout as did Obama. Senator McCain also was a sponsor of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform... how did that work out John? Unfortunately when McCain was playing the maverick he was often on the wrong side of the issue.

1325 polarguy  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 4:53:02am

"I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans."

My position, too. That's why I'm opposed to affirmative action, set-asides, and the whole panoply of our Nuremberg Law/Jim Crow/Apartheid state.

"As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a ”wall of separation“ between church and state."

Absolutely. That is why no one by word, thought, or deed (including policy, commercial transaction, etc.) should be required by the state to acknowledge or support in any way gay "marriage". The state cannot be allowed to legislate morality, to repeal the doctrines of the church and to compel its followers to obey its own (the state's) morality.

pg

1326 maximoso  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 5:03:05am

Every election cycle we get Letters like this.

I'm not a " live begins at conception guy " but I can look at the Republican party as being for protecting the foundation of our country by preserving the checks and balances of our constitution to protect individual rights. I can also acknowledge that means limiting taxes and government expansion.

Life, Liberty, and the " PURSUIT " of happiness need to be protected. There's no logic to turning off 1/3 of your supporting base by taking out the single issue that many of them vote for. Particulalry the activists in the part that man the phone banks - organize to get out the vote - and donate a good portion of campaign funds ( something McCain was inept at doing until he brought Sarah Palin to the ticket )

As to gay marriage - the Republican party doesn't bring that issue up - the gay rights activists and Liberal Judges bring it up. And Even in LIBERAL Kahlifornia voted it down - so I don't see the argument gaining any traction as a core reason for anything.

This Doc bought into the MSM's characterture of the Republican party because there is a lack of leadership within the party at the moment - and our candidate was inept at running his campaign to establish and promote a conservative platform and communicate how it helps America and it's citizens prosper. Just like Palin isn't some dimwitted, bible pushing, book burning turnip that Tina Fey made her out to be - The Republican party isn't what he articulates it as. Maybe the Republican party deserves the brunt of the responsibility for giving us McCain as the candidate - or abandoning their principles when they got into power - but throwing pro-lifers out of the party is just plain silly.

Glad to know the doc is in favor of cutting off his heart in order to treat his acid reflux thought. Remind me not to visit his practice.

1327 zuckerlilly  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 5:19:29am

Are there any data's/numbers/analysis how the religious right voted in the presidential election?

During the campaign Obama led with 9 points:

Poll: Obama leads among Christians

A poll by the Barna Group, a Christian polling and resarch organization says Democrat Barack Obama maintains a nine point lead over Republican John McCain among Christians. The poll finds that the race is tightening.

Among the key findings -

1) Of the 18 faith groups identified in the polls, McCain is only leading among evangelicals and it's a narrow lead. Obama leads among the other 17 faith groups identified including the born again vote (Barna notes that would mark the first time in more than two decades that the born again vote has swung toward the Democratic candidate.

2) McCain has a narrow lead among evangelicals but a third say they're undecided and McCain's support is weakening among the group:

While some Christian voters seem to be questioning their early support for Obama, the McCain candidacy does not seem to be gaining momentum among evangelicals. Since June, the current level of support Sen. McCain has among evangelical voters has declined significantly (dropping from 78% to 61%).

The poll found that the Christian perspective is similar to that of the general voting public. Here are some interesting tidbits from George Barna:

-- When comparing the dimensions on which each candidate stands out in the eyes of voters, Sen. Obama emerged as the candidate of new ideas, for being black (mentioned as their reason for supporting him by 9%), for being different from George Bush (9%), and for his positions on health care (9%). In each case, the percentage of people naming those reasons substantially exceeded the percentage that identified those as reasons for their support of the Republican candidate.
Similarly, Sen. McCain stood out as being more likely to gain support related to his experience, knowing what the nation needs, for his position on taxes (9%), for being conservative (8%), for being a war hero (8%), and because of his military background (6%).

-- "It is unusual to see such significant movement within the core segments of the Christian community," George Barna explained. "While there is still a decided preference for Senator Obama, the more conservative element of the Christian population is slowly coming to grips with what an Obama presidency might be like. As the finer points of a wide range of issues are clarified by each nominee, the initial excitement about Senator Obama has lost some luster to an increasing number of people whose vote is influenced by their spiritual perspectives. If Sen. McCain converts such apprehensions into votes, this will be a closer race than many have anticipated."

Check the entire poll here.

1328 outsidephilly  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 5:20:07am

re: #696 CharlieBravo

Not to change the important subject. But please check 'side effects' of medication especially if you care for elderly. Statin for instance can produce 'global transitory amnesia' leading to symptoms similar to alzheimers as well as muscle pain that can be confused with 'old age diseases' and cause loss of balance.

great point, CharlieBravo, and clearly written!
So often our loved ones are on way too many meds; meds which frequently trip each other up thus creating cloudy dispositions.
Hope this topic will get mentioned again.

1329 outsidephilly  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 5:29:05am

re: #896 Intrepid

Thanks outsidephilly - I will read the dreaded Medicare blooklet and check again to see if she qualifies.

But mom owns her own home and her SS/Pension/Annuities often disqualify her from government assistance. She just doesn't draw enough to pay for an additional $200 bill to the Day Care folks!

. . . , oops, I spoke too soon! You're right, because your mom owns her own home, she'll have very limited access to 'available' assistance, such as, Adult Day Care. Its important you check into to 're-arranging' your mom's assets. The state laws, depending on which state you live in, have criteria which can free you up on some of this. Find an Elder Law Attorney in your area, call them, ask them to send you some info regarding caring for the elderly. Or, just call you State Representative's office. State Reps have oodles of material on caring for the elderly.

1330 jester6  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 5:32:34am

I don't think guys like this doc really matter and the Republicans need to stop listening to people like him. The influence of the religious right in the Republican party is overstated. It's a meme propagated by the MSM and bought into by some Republicans like this doc.

It is possible to be against abortion from a moral perspective. Same thing with stem cell research. Even Libertarians have internal differences on abortion and stem cell research. They are issues that reasonable people can disagree on.

1331 phoenixgirl  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 5:39:15am

QUICK WE MUST DO SOMETHING! HURRY! CHANGE THE PARTY PLATFORM! QUICK! WE ARE IN A CRISIS THAT DEMANDS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION! WE HAVE EXACTLY 24 HOURS OR THE WHOLE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT IS GOING TO COLLAPSE! IN FACT WE BETTER THROW A BUNCH OF MONEY AT IT WHILE WE'RE AT IT!/ sounds like congresses answer to the financial crisis?

1332 doriangrey  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 5:43:39am

re: #1331 phoenixgirl

QUICK WE MUST DO SOMETHING! HURRY! CHANGE THE PARTY PLATFORM! QUICK! WE ARE IN A CRISIS THAT DEMANDS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION! WE HAVE EXACTLY 24 HOURS OR THE WHOLE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT IS GOING TO COLLAPSE! IN FACT WE BETTER THROW A BUNCH OF MONEY AT IT WHILE WE'RE AT IT!/ sounds like congresses answer to the financial crisis?

Good morning PG... Paul Hsieh may have voted republican but the man is not and never was a conservative. Conservatives don't abandon t6heir principals because religious people hold conservative principals. This idiot of a doctor voted republican because he was a cult of personality voter and he proved that by voting Obama.

1333 theatheistjew  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 5:51:27am

re: #1330 jester6

I don't think guys like this doc really matter and the Republicans need to stop listening to people like him. The influence of the religious right in the Republican party is overstated. It's a meme propagated by the MSM and bought into by some Republicans like this doc.

It is possible to be against abortion from a moral perspective. Same thing with stem cell research. Even Libertarians have internal differences on abortion and stem cell research. They are issues that reasonable people can disagree on.


Feel free to stick your head in the sand, but if the Republican's listen to you, they'll become extinct like the dinosaurs you probably don't believe in.

Did the Republicans Learn A Lesson

1334 Student of Objectivism  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:02:29am

Thanks for posting this Charles. For this, LGF is no longer on "time-out" from me, and I am no longer boycotting LGF ;D

Cheers!

1335 Student of Objectivism  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:03:39am

re: #1 FightingBack

Do a google search of Paul Hsieh and medicine and get back to me. You may find some nice results that refute your joke.

1336 Dirk Diggler  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:07:18am

maximoso,

Glad to know the doc is in favor of cutting off his heart in order to treat his acid reflux thought. Remind me not to visit his practice.

Dynamite post. I'd upding it if that feature weren't disabled.

1337 RedSoxNation  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:14:47am

Republicans better listen to this guy. The Religious Right was originally part of the Republican coalition because it wanted to be left alone by the federal government, especially federal judges. So, when small towns in mid-American wanted to adopt school prayer, they didn't want the federal government interfering. The same with abortion. If South Dakota wanted to ban abortion, it didn't want the federal government to "make up" constitutional protections that were not there. But when the federal government began advocating a "religious" agenda, that turned a lot of people away. The Terri Scavio legislation was the low point. A limited federal government means that the federal government will not interfere with New Yorkers (who may want gay marriage) or Nebraskans (who may not want gay marriage). Republicans ignore this guy at their own peril.

1338 Student of Objectivism  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:15:33am

re: #9 Walter L. Newton

And what does your comment have to do with the article? I think there is a lot more in his article than the fact that he voted for Obama.

assuummppttions

assummmptions

assumptions

1339 sleepyone  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:17:19am

re: #1304 Steve in Philly


The Republican Party needs to be taught a lesson that voters will not stand for this kind of behavior; nor will they stand for religious-based policies being pushed down their throats. When they learn that lesson I may vote for them again. In the meantime it is far better to have the self-declared leftists/socialists running the country under these abhorrent policies, rather than have the supposed representatives of capitalism doing so, and in the process completely destroying the meaning of free markets and liberty.

Can you name one instance of the Republican party trying to push religious based policies down the voter's throat?

While you are right that the Republican party of late is nothing more than a bunch of spendaholics, you are seriously mistaken if you think it's better to have a "self-declared leftist/socialist" running this country than any Republican.

1340 Student of Objectivism  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:18:01am

re: #10 Tigger2005

I agree with much of what he's saying, but I don't buy his argument as an excuse for not voting Republican this year. John McCain was hardly a "conservative" candidate, and Sarah Palin doesn't push her beliefs on anybody.

The next four years could very well determine the fate of our Republic, and Obama is not the man to lead us during this critical time. We are now in deep, deep shit. This was not the time to bail on the Republican ticket. We don't have the luxury of making this kind of mistake.

McCain and Palin aren't fundamentally different from Obama. They both want to run our lives and aren't for freedom. Both parties share the same basic premises. McCain should have been boycotted for misrepresenting a pro-capitalist, pro-American stance.

1341 Student of Objectivism  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:19:46am

re: #80 ghost707

The religious right was running a candidate this year for President?
So I guess the doctor was ok with the Rev Wright religion of Obama's.

That isn't the point, if you actually read the article. And you make assumptions.

1342 Jimmah  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:39:39am

re: #1272 Adina in Judea

According to science - zygotes, embryos and fetuses are the youngest possible forms of human beings. They aren't potential human beings. They are entirely and exclusively human beings (in a purely scientific sense.)

Calling them clumps, cheek cells or limbs is self-serving disingenuous nonsense.

We've been through this before and you repeat the same nonsense. Calling a clump of cells a clump of cells is what you call honest reporting of the facts. It is not disingenuous.

What is disingenuous is your use of the term 'human being' to impute personhood into what in fact is a clump of cells, without a brain or nervous system, or even into a single cell as you have also argued here.

1343 HBob  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:45:33am

Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Adult stem cell therapy is being used to treat over 70 diseases and conditions - successfully. Embryonic stem cells are not being use to treat any diseases. Because it doesn't work. If you want tumors, use embryonic stem cells. It's a scam by "scientists" to drive a car down a dead end road with the government paying for the gas - and the car.

Gay Marriage - 70% of blacks in California voted for Prop 8. (93% of blacks voted for Democrat ) 53% of Hispanics voted for prop 8. It wouldn't have passed without them. It was socially conservative democrats who passed it.

Straw men. Or should I say Astroturf men.

1344 elcaro  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:47:19am

I have a feeling this Doctor will want to talk with the "Religious Right" again in 3 years...

1345 Semi Cartman  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:48:29am

re: #1322 Bill Dalasio

Moreover, in practical, definable terms, the daily threats to my liberty are not being pushed by religious conservatives...


Here is the very nexus of the discussion, everything else just leads to argument about various minutiae, then paralysis. Freedom or Not, that's been my central criterion for thirty or so years of voting. The details, issues, etc of which there are hundreds all relate in a workaday sense to the practical operation of a society, and on all these there is room for debate. The main theme, Liberty, is non negotiable. It also wasn't considered by either party, by name or in principle during the campaign. Tax policy, health care, national security, etc are important debating points, but ultimately moot without a free society to enjoy them.


Great to see this thread still around and on topic as the sun comes up.

1346 FrogMarch  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:02:38am

re: #465 Fearless Fred

JONAH GOLDBERG: The idea that social liberalism and economic conservatism can coexist easily is not well supported by the evidence.

I have to take issue with Jonah. I usually agree with him - but not here:

For example, in Congress and in state legislatures, the more pro-life you are, the more likely you are to be a free-market, low-tax conservative. The more pro-choice you are, the more likely it is that you will be remarkably generous with other people’s money.

Wrong.

1347 Jimmah  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:04:57am

re: #1343 HBob

Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Adult stem cell therapy is being used to treat over 70 diseases and conditions - successfully. Embryonic stem cells are not being use to treat any diseases. Because it doesn't work. If you want tumors, use embryonic stem cells. It's a scam by "scientists" to drive a car down a dead end road with the government paying for the gas - and the car.

link here

Have human embryonic stem cells been used successfully to treat any human diseases yet?
Scientists have only been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Moreover, federal funds to support hESC research have only been available since August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on federal funding for hESC research. Because many academic researchers rely on federal funds to support their laboratories, they are just beginning to learn how to grow and use the cells. Thus, although hESC are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in its early stages.

Adult stem cells such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs) are currently the only type of stem cell commonly used to treat human diseases. Doctors have been transferring HSCs in bone marrow transplants for over 40 years. More advanced techniques of collecting, or "harvesting", HSCs are now used in order to treat leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders.

The clinical potential of adult stem cells has also been demonstrated in the treatment of other human diseases that include diabetes and advanced kidney cancer. However, these newer uses have involved studies with a very limited number of patients.


What will be the best type of stem cell to use for therapy?
Pluripotent stem cells, while having great therapeutic potential, face formidable technical challenges. First, scientists must learn how to control their development into all the different types of cells in the body. Second, the cells now available for research are likely to be rejected by a patient's immune system. Another serious consideration is that the idea of using stem cells from human embryos or human fetal tissue troubles many people on ethical grounds.

Until recently, there was little evidence that multipotent adult stem cells could change course and provide the flexibility that researchers need in order to address all the medical diseases and disorders they would like to. New findings in animals, however, suggest that even after a stem cell has begun to specialize, it may be more flexible than previously thought.

There are currently several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses might limit the usefulness of adult stem cells.

1348 princetrumpet  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:13:33am

Sorry... i can't accept the man's premise that people only are against abortion on purely religious grounds. That's just ign'ant. One can believe that abortion is the murder of nascent human life for legal, non-religious reasons. This guy's afraid of the so-called religious right for his own weird reasons. I believe in G-d, raised Catholic but don't have a church I go to regularly. Abortion is antithetical to me because of having gone through two pregnancies with my wife not because of anything I heard in church.

I reject his silly premise out of hand.

1349 jester6  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:17:54am

re: #1343 HBob

Excellent points.

Just to make it clear. Embryonic stem cell research has not been banned. Government funding of research on new lines has been banned.

The "religious right taking over the Republican Party" is really an idea created by the MSM. To be sure, religious conservatives find themselves at home in the Republican Party, just as blacks, Jews or school teachers find themselves more comfortable with Democrats.

In 2000 there were more school teachers at the Democratic convention then any other group (not sure if it is still true). How many stories do you see in the MSM talking about how the people who run our disfunctional public education system dominate the Democratic party? Ever see a story lamenting the influence of blacks or Jews in the party for trying to force their views down our throats.

1350 Yashmak  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:33:37am

re: #1343 HBobGay Marriage - 70% of blacks in California voted for Prop 8. (93% of blacks voted for Democrat ) 53% of Hispanics voted for prop 8. It wouldn't have passed without them. It was socially conservative democrats who passed it.

I find myself wondering if, with the addition of these votes from blocs which traditionally have low turnout, if the Democratic voters actually voted more socially conservative than the Republican voters on this issue.

1351 Joan  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:37:20am

re: #1066 Joo-LiZ

Our university "students" are more thuggish and amoral than the general population. This has been so since the radicalization of the universities, which started in earnest during the 1960's, when it became fashionable to ape such glorious egalitarian movements as the Parisian anarchists and Maoist Red Guards. Ayers, our now ubiquitous pillar of the community and educator, could 'splain to to ya. In fact, as I recall, Dostoevsky painted a portrait of intellectual savagery in The Possessed

Well, our university students, majority, are nice and mediocre and just want to have a nice life. They're like me and my neighbors and friends. But there is a growing and vicious minority--maybe as high as 30%--who have no scruples or integrity where ideology is in play. These are Marxist-influenced whether they know it or not, and if necessary, they will be formed into cadres very much like the Red Guard, and they will be deployed to enforce the culture of liberation "by any means necessary," the real fruit of all our suicidal acquiescence to institutionalized collectivism and moral relativism.

This long thread reveals an element among conservatives who are more angered and punitive towards traditionalists, absolutists than towards the corrosive collectivists of the left.

No, I'm not talking about "you" I'm talking about those who say things like "flush them down the toilet" which post I have lost in this behemoth of a thread. I'm talking about my own sister, who abandoned the Republicans on the excuse that she hated the Bush family for being stupid and ignorant clods. In fact, she was following her own set of absolutes: unrestricted abortion on demand, silence and the elimination of any religious influence in public life. She is fiscally conservative, and a very ethical, generous person.

Even if social conservatives, the religious right, sits down and shuts up and just goes on being good little foot soldiers, the hatred of them will not abate among some factions. It is a symptom of the revolt against absolutes.

It is a delusion to believe that there are no absolutes. It is simply a question of which absolutes one decides to support.

1352 greggriffith  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:39:09am

This is a troubling development, to say the least - to couple abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research to religion, and to imply (or worse, declare) that to be against any of them is to endorse "the religious right." Powerful, coherent arguments can be made against all three on grounds that don't involve religion at all.

This is a radically different issue from creationism, and while I don't care at all for the efforts of creationists to supplant the study of evolution with creationism, I have to say I'm also troubled by Charles's trend lately (at least as I see it, perhaps I have the wrong impression) toward lumping creationism in with so-called "social-con" issues like the ones listed above.

If you value life, then there is a direct logical line that runs inexorably to the conclusion that abortion is murder - and it DOESN'T RUN THROUGH RELIGION AT ALL. If you value the family - and if you claim to be a conservative - then there is a direct logical line that runs inexorably to the conclusion that gay marriage is an incoherent concept that defines marriage out of existence, and to the detriment of civil society, and it DOESN'T RUN THROUGH RELIGION AT ALL.

It seems transparent enough to me that what is happening here - with people who call themselves "conservative" but write articles like this in which they blame the GOP's failures on "the religious right" - is that these people are losing their nerve, and they're letting us know what they're willing to jettison in order to have people with an (R) after their names in public office. They're scapegoating, and concocting nonsense syllogisms to defend their decision to throw social issues overboard in their pursuit of "conservative" victory.

In the face of stiff opposition, there are always a few in the mushy middle who are willing to compromise with the enemy, and we are seeing some of them being smoked out lately. For anyone who spent over a couple of election cycles happily supporting the pro-life, anti-gay-marriage positions of the GOP while we were winning, and who have now decided that that was folly, I find it far easier to believe that they are not really conservatives; they just really prefer to be on the side of those who win elections.

1353 [deleted]  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:41:47am
1354 Noam Chumpski  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:43:46am

re: #1101 BigJohn

Does the Doc's argument hold water? Why didn't he have a problem with the Republican party's embrace of the religious right in 1996, 2000, and 2004?

I agree and would argue that the 'religious embrace' was even stronger in '96, '00, and '04. For most of my friends (of the religious persuasion) they felt that McCain didn't get it. Hence, Huckabee won in GA (in the Primary).

No one in S. GA knew what religion Palin was and when they found out she was (whatever) the only comment I heard was, "Don't they do all that snake handling?" Not really helping with the religious base in my area of knowledge.

This "Doc" is a fraud. I'm unsure why Charles has given him an audience except that he seems to also believe that Social Conservatism is a dead end and is itching to push the agenda so we can fully implode or something. Can't wait for the coming barrage of other ridiculous articles written by [insert liberal here] on why the Republicans should abandon the largest voting block they have for... nothing.

And, no, this isn't thought-provoking - it's boring.

Conservative lost for a simple reason: For the most part, I couldn't find one on my ballot this year and I haven't seen one in 8 years.

1355 leereyno  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:52:16am

Now maybe I'm not paying close enough attention, but I'm not aware of the Republican party pushing a religious right agenda, at least no more so than it ever has.

There are so many people who are harping up and saying that this year's electoral defeat has been a failure of the Republicans to align itself with the will of the voters. I don't think that this is true at all. The failure was not in having the wrong message, but it having no message at all. Can anyone describe the platform that McCain was running on? What about the Republican party in general?

Our response to the realities of a world at war with us has less then spectacular. The Bush administration has been addled by efforts to appease the left. It isn't bi-partisanship to kiss up to one's enemies at home. The most clear example of this was the administration's response to attacks from the left calling its accurate description of our enemies overseas "racism" and "bigotry." Rather than telling the left to cram it, the administration responded with appeasement and began talking about a "war on terror" instead of a war against Islamofascism. Imagine for a moment if the US had been fighting a "war on blitzkrieg" instead of a war against European Fascism. The map of Europe today would undoubtedly be different. The war we have been fighting since 9/11 has always been a war on many fronts, and one of those fronts is right here against leftists who have aligned themselves with our foes under the principle that the enemy of their enemy is their friend. The Republican's have failed to respond to this properly, but have fallen back on appeasement and hoped that by remaining silent the leftist bullies would play nice. Conservatives in general have done this as well, allowing ourselves to be cast in a bad light instead of fighting back.

The problem is not the wrong message, but the lack of a consistent message that is promoted, defended, and lived up to. This is what has allowed an empty suit with communist sympathies and deep anti-American affiliations to take the white house.

Without a reason to vote Republican, that percentage of the voters who can be fooled some of the time were persuaded with empty promises of "Hope" and "Change." They'll live to regret this decision of course, but that lesson may come at dear price.

1356 floater  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:52:58am

Good Morning Suicidal "Conservatives" -- Throw the Religious Right out, fine. Just make sure you answer the the following questions correctly: Was the Religious Right responsible for the Bush Administration outspending the Clinton Administration? Did the Religious Right create the economic meltdown which killed John McCain's chances? Was it the Religious Right managing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Expanding entitlements under Bush was the Religious Right's main focus? Do most Americans believe in abortion on demand? I could go on and on; and also on and on about my religious views and my desire to form strong coalitions to put a stop to Leftism. But we need to find out who's on first -- if you believe the Religious Right is the bane of the Conservative effort, it will be difficult to form a coalition with you.

1357 jweaks  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:53:53am

Embrace of the religious right? LOL

yeah, right.

1358 [deleted]  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:54:09am
1359 outsidephilly  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:56:24am

re: #1231 NY Nana

/And the Demonrats run the best of the best.

Just look at who will be our President, our VP, Pelosi, and too many to name as I am trying to get to sleep at a reasonable hour. I still cannot believe that they are actually elected...we have only those voters who decided to stay home to blame, damn it. Too bad the names of those who are registered but do not vote can't be made public.

I know that the Republicans are outnumbered and that people were unhappy with the choices, but damn it, not voting? Unconscionable. It is a privilege that millions of people around the world would give their lives for, and tragically do, when they try to change their dictatorship into a democracy.I have to wonder what they think if they are aware of the fact that people here throw tantrums if the candidate is not to their qualifications.

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, and in Hussein and Biden? We got the bottom of the barrel, and our kids and grandkids will pay the price, but so will all those who sat on their asses.

End of rant, but I am so pissed that I could scream.

And the MD in that article? I hope he can perform a lobotomy on himself. I read the article 3 or 4 times...excuses, excuses...

well said, NY Nana!

1360 zack  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 7:58:38am

After almost 30 years of being clearly on the side of the religious right, the claim that the Republican Party just now in '08 turned that way is bizarre in the extreme.

The kicker is that Hsieh wrote his piece after California voted heavily for Obama AND approved Prop 9. Hello?! Having missed that connection confirms the guy is impervious to reality.

We are unlikely to see another reform ticket like McCain-Palin from either party in our lifetimes. A golden opportunity has been missed due to astonishingly uninformed and misinformed voters like Dr Hsieh. Pity.

1361 Yerachmiel  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:00:46am

This looks like a post that Kos would be trumpeting. We lose an election because of a weak candidate so we put our heads down and our tail between our legs?!?

McCain hardly ran on a Religious Conservative agenda. If anything, he looked like a moderate Democrat. That's why the Republicans lost this year. The party has completely lost it's grasp of true conservative values.

It seems many Repubs are looking to find a way to appease and win new voters by embracing liberal policies. Huh?!? Haven't we learned what appeasement gets you yet? Have we achieved anything in the Middle East by appeasing the Saudis, North Koreans, etc. And the Dems aren't much better - they also see appeasement as weakness and go for the throat.

Becoming more like the Dems isn't going to rebuild the Republican base. Reagan clobbered the Dems and won the hearts of America by being a Hard-Ass conservative, and that's what the Repubs needs to relearn and embrace, and we'll have the slingshot momentum of the rediculous destructive policies that the Dems are promising to deploy to get that done.

1362 Junior  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:08:52am

This article is laughable. We lost because the Republicans are in bed with the religious right? Really?

John McCain? Really? Give me a break. If he is the religious right than Obama is too.

What idiots like Paul fail to realize is that conservatism has always won elections; always. Conservative economics, government, social policy, etc. It always wins.

And I find it hilarious that he didn't vote for McCain for this reason (too much religious right), yet he voted for Bush twice? Really? This article is a joke at best or a lesson in alternative universes at worse.

John McCain lost (for a host of reasons, but) because he waffled all over the map trying to get votes from... LIBERALS!

1363 Joan  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:14:58am

re: #1347 Jimmah

The debate on stem cell research once again brings us to the underlying conflict of cultures, which runs aground on various forms of the dilemma: Does the end justify the means?

Absolutists agonize about the question. Moderates consider the question and do what they hope is right. Radicals heap scorn on the question and continue the fight to prevail by any means necessary.

The fight over human embryonic stem cell research is less about the merits of various therapies or lines of research, than it is about the disdain for asking questions: "Is it really necessary to destroy or tinker with human embryos, is it the only way, what will be the consequences down the road?" vs "Stupid questions. Get out of our way."

1364 Joan  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:17:08am

re: #1355 leereyno

Now maybe I'm not paying close enough attention, but I'm not aware of the Republican party pushing a religious right agenda, at least no more so than it ever has.

There are so many people who are harping up and saying that this year's electoral defeat has been a failure of the Republicans to align itself with the will of the voters. I don't think that this is true at all. The failure was not in having the wrong message, but it having no message at all. Can anyone describe the platform that McCain was running on? What about the Republican party in general?

Our response to the realities of a world at war with us has less then spectacular. The Bush administration has been addled by efforts to appease the left. It isn't bi-partisanship to kiss up to one's enemies at home. The most clear example of this was the administration's response to attacks from the left calling its accurate description of our enemies overseas "racism" and "bigotry." Rather than telling the left to cram it, the administration responded with appeasement and began talking about a "war on terror" instead of a war against Islamofascism. Imagine for a moment if the US had been fighting a "war on blitzkrieg" instead of a war against European Fascism. The map of Europe today would undoubtedly be different. The war we have been fighting since 9/11 has always been a war on many fronts, and one of those fronts is right here against leftists who have aligned themselves with our foes under the principle that the enemy of their enemy is their friend. The Republican's have failed to respond to this properly, but have fallen back on appeasement and hoped that by remaining silent the leftist bullies would play nice. Conservatives in general have done this as well, allowing ourselves to be cast in a bad light instead of fighting back.

The problem is not the wrong message, but the lack of a consistent message that is promoted, defended, and lived up to. This is what has allowed an empty suit with communist sympathies and deep anti-American affiliations to take the white house.

Without a reason to vote Republican, that percentage of the voters who can be fooled some of the time were persuaded with empty promises of "Hope" and "Change." They'll live to regret this decision of course, but that lesson may come at dear price.

Wow!
Great essay. (quoted here so people don't miss it.)

1365 McKie Of BuSab  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:18:27am

The article would be right if reversed. There are an awful lot of religious people who would vote for the Democrats because of the perceived kindness of socialised medicine and welfare, but cannot because they cannot vote for a party that is actively promoting embryo research, abortion and gay marriage.
If the democrats dumped their attachments to abortion etc., they would be able to stay in power for a very long time. Well at least until they completely bankrupted the country.

1366 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:21:20am

re: #1295 blbfootballs

I find this line of argument very uncompelling. "Banning" abortion? All that most conservatives/Constitutionalists seek is the overturning of the absurd Roe v. Wade decision which declared blanket approval over all abortions, and let the voters of the country and each state to decide the boundaries of legal abortion. (And conservatives know that the majority of states will choose to preserve the legality of the majority of abortions).

While most conservatives may feel the way you describe, the fact is that the National Republican Party platform specifically calls for a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions, not even allowing exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. And anyone who doesn't believe that this plank is in the platform because of the religious far right is in denial.

1367 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:23:34am

re: #1363 Joan

The fight over human embryonic stem cell research is less about the merits of various therapies or lines of research, than it is about the disdain for asking questions: "Is it really necessary to destroy or tinker with human embryos, is it the only way, what will be the consequences down the road?" vs "Stupid questions. Get out of our way."

Please point to one article in favor of embryonic stem cell research that takes that attitude - because I've never seen any such thing. The people who advocate for that kind of research, at least the ones whose articles I've read, are very aware of the ethical issues and do not have anything like the calloused attitude you're ascribing to them.

1368 Yerachmiel  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:34:51am

re: #1366 Charles

Charles - This plank isn't totally religious far right - it's just Draconian. Any Scriptural scholar will verify that nowhere is it stated that the life of a fetus outweighs the life of the mother. It's exactly the opposite. The life of the mother is primary. The rape/incest clause is definitely more of a murky area :)

1369 TMF  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:38:41am
believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms

So you voted for a big government, collective/community rights supporting, anti free market, defense slashing gun grabber for President?

Im no religious righter, but are you retarded?

1370 mean Gene  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:40:38am

So, let me get this straight.
This supposed Republican wouldn't hold his nose over a Palin in the VP slot knowing he was as sure as shooting enabling an 0bama in the Pres slot?
Has this writer's bona fides been vetted?
Is he REALLY a Republican?
I have strong doubts.
Libs make a practice of calling CSPAN and Rush as ''life-long Republicans who will never vote Republican again over this or that little thing."

1371 Yashmak  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:40:54am

re: #1358 Iron Fist

Lots of blacks are social conservativs, they just dont vote their concience. Rather than tacking Left, I'd rather the Party reach out to These people, and woo them away from the Democrats. Done properly, the Democrats will never be able to win nation-wide election again.

Not without major restructuring their party for today's elections, and the fact that the Civil Rights movement is over. They won the arguement. Accept your victory, and move on.

I agree. Their votes didn't surprise me. That said, I'm not sure how possible it will be for the Republicans to 'reach out' to them now. Even if Obama is a mediocre or even BAD President, they will remember the Democratic party as the one that put the first black President in office. I think at this point, it would require a major restructuring of the Republican party, or some disastrous legislation by the Democrats which damages their stance with black voters for the Republicans to capture the majority of this demographic.

1372 quickjustice  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:41:58am

re: #1366 Charles

The Clinton and Bush Administrations and the GOP-controlled Congress succumbed to the temptation to use the federal government to impose a social conservative agenda in several areas, Defense of Marriage, Faith-Based Initiatives, and abortion among them.

Important as these issues may be to people of faith, it was a huge strategic mistake to federalize them. The federal government should have been used to make clear that state legislatures, and initiative and referendum, are the appropriate places for these sorts of decisions, not Washington. Concentrating power in Washington plays into the dysfunction of FDR and the New Deal, and Johnson and the Great Society, building massive national entitlement bureaucracies that ordinary citizens cannot control, and the Congress cannot, and will not, oversee.

I already said that I find this essay very sad, not because I disagree with this physician's disgust with the GOP, but because McCain's health care plan was a coherent and effective way to restore patient control and physician autonomy to the health care system, goals which this doctor indicates are also important to him. BY voting Obama, he kneecapped himself and his fellow physicians.

1373 [deleted]  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:45:27am
1374 satan sidekick  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:50:13am

re: #25 Iron Fist


How about the fact that Obama belonged to an extremist church? Why didn't that become a factor in his decision?

1375 SpaceJesus  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 8:53:30am

I wonder if now is the perfect time for us libertarian-minded types to hijack the republican party during its moment of soul searching. maybe we can kick out the social conservatives and they can start their own Jesus party or something.

1376 Yerachmiel  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:01:03am

re: #1375 SpaceJesus

'Jesus party'?!? What the heck is hating people with religious convictions going to achieve? You don't have to accommodate their more extreme views - but calling them names - what exactly does that accomplish?

1377 [deleted]  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:07:04am
1378 gm096510  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:07:08am

I don't believe in abortion except to protect the mother's health or in cases of rape and incest. I am not a member of any church. My belief is based on the notion, which I accept, that life begins at conception.

It is a notion based on personal moral belief and personal logic, not on religion. I believe that the protection of human life is paramount, whenever possible.

Neither would I prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion. It's her moral belief. A sad one, in my opinion, but as worthy in personal value as mine.

So, if I lived in a state that chose to restrict, not ban, abortion by an electoral process, then I can vote my conscience or my reason based on the content of the proposed law. To do otherwise is to base the vote on ideology. There might be an argument for that, but I generally think that position is a weak argument.

1379 [deleted]  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:16:28am
1380 Joan  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:17:02am

re: #1367 Charles

Please point to one article in favor of embryonic stem cell research that takes that attitude - because I've never seen any such thing. The people who advocate for that kind of research, at least the ones whose articles I've read, are very aware of the ethical issues and do not have anything like the calloused attitude you're ascribing to them.

I'm not referring primarily to scientific researchers, as to run of the mill voters whom I encounter, and hard-left activists by whom I'm surrounded. The posts on this thread got pretty heated, because polemics are mixed in with point-by-point debate essays. The debate in Michigan was carried out by tv commercials, in which a voice-over mother of a diabetic child wants to look dissenters in the eye and tell her that her child is not worth saving. That is polemics, or propaganda, or demagoguery which the ground on which almost everything is fought.

I will search for medical ethics articles to see what the record is there, and further, will look at the problem of the increasing politicization of science. In fact, like most people who post here on this or any subject, my mind is made up on the matter of human embryonic stem cell research. However, it is fair to call me and others to account if polemics fail to have basis in the actual record. Also for the record: I have changed my mind on other matters as a result of essays posted here--first on the matter of Intelligent Design as a negative and damaging movement for science education; second, on the need to remember that the Republican Party is a political party, not a religious party.

There is a history of the hijacking of science by political movements, from the sterilizations that took place before the Second World War, the placebo treatment scandal carried out on the Tuskeegee airmen, the LSD experiments on Vietnam War soldiers, the sudden rehabilitation by social psychology researchers of the unethical "Milgram" experiment--a callous attitude on the part of science is not impossible, nor is the hijacking of legitimate science by zealots and quacks.

1381 heyou  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:22:55am

re: applying the 14th amendment to unborn "citizens"-that is absurd! The unborn are citizens of WOMAN-and they do not have "equal rights". How could they? If the unborn have an EQUAL right to life, if the unborn are EQUAL citizens, then on what grounds can you say abortion is okay in order to save the woman's life. Oh wait -you can't.

1382 [deleted]  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:27:01am
1383 SpaceJesus  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:29:13am

re: #1376 Yerachmiel

hate is such a strong word.


I think it would be a nice trade off. We lose some religious crazies who think the earth is 82 years old or whatever, and we gain millions of smart, rational people from the democrats. Another Reagan landslide will be just around the corner.

We can have three parties this way: A Marxist/Green Party, a normal party full of common sense people, and a religious whahabbist/jesus party. It'll be great, trust me.


There. I've solved all the Republicans' problems. Thank me later Karl Rove.

1384 Yashmak  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:33:53am

re: #1377 Iron Fist

Yep, I've explained all your points there, on multiple occasions. If they didn't get it then, they certainly won't, not now that the Dems put Obama in office.

This approach, however, I believe may be counter-productive:

The place to try and woo some of these voters is an emphasis on Traditional values like the gay marriage issue.

As is obvious, from the variety of responses here. . .this might pick up some (but probably not much) of the black vote, but you'll lose some of the socially moderate Republicans who with the exception of these few issues, would otherwise always vote straight Republican ticket.

1385 SpaceJesus  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:34:09am

re: #1382 Iron Fist


Burning the party to the ground and starting all over again isn't anarchistic. Anarchistic would be burning the party to the ground then never having government, much less parties, ever again.

1386 [deleted]  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:37:54am
1387 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:38:12am

re: #1380 Joan

I will search for medical ethics articles to see what the record is there, and further, will look at the problem of the increasing politicization of science. In fact, like most people who post here on this or any subject, my mind is made up on the matter of human embryonic stem cell research. However, it is fair to call me and others to account if polemics fail to have basis in the actual record. Also for the record: I have changed my mind on other matters as a result of essays posted here--first on the matter of Intelligent Design as a negative and damaging movement for science education; second, on the need to remember that the Republican Party is a political party, not a religious party.

My point is that by demonizing the pro-stem cell research side, you're engaging in exactly the kind of politicization you're decrying.

Everyone might be better served in these debates if we could start from the assumption that our opponents are not obsessed monsters, but human beings who have come to different conclusions on important issues. There will always be loudmouths and hotheads, but most of the people on both sides of the debate are arguing as honestly as they can, from reasoned positions.

1388 tradewind  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:44:52am

With all due respect to the author of this post, the stats will show McCain suffered far more from the absence of core Republican conservatives than from defectors such as Dr Hsieh.

1389 [deleted]  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:47:43am
1390 George Bruce  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 10:16:50am

Sigh.

Yet another attempt to argue that 48 divided by 2 equals 51.

1391 big L  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 10:24:00am

g'bye matey,paul. Enjoy being pauperized by the big O

1392 shmuli  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 10:49:34am

After 1358 notes, I doubt I can add much to this thread, but I am upset at the premises of Dr. Hseih.

The influence of the Religious Right on abortion, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage was not significantly more pronounced in 2008 than 1996, 2000 and 2004. This is a bogus argument. Anti-abortion positions have certainly influenced the Republican party since Roe vs Wade (1973) and probably even before that. Concern for WHEN infanticide occurs is certainly an issue over which the body politic can argue - this is clearly NOT just a religious issue. Embryonic stem cell research was a political issue in the 90's, with Clinton AND Congress both restricting this research, so this also is also not recent or just a religious issue. Gay marriage is clearly a socially transforming concept, regardless of your religious perspective. Even the Greeks, great buggers, pagans and philosophers that they were, did not establish marriage contracts between men, nor has ANY civilization done so in human history.

Second, the idea that voting for those who DON'T believe in "limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms . . " is, in any measure, a way support these important values, is laughable. It is infantile to quit because you can't get everything you want. This absurdity, not politics. Dr. Hseih is reduced to the arguments leftists currently use to persuade Republicans that they can return to power by abandoning "social conservative" issues. LOL, as if Democrats support the three major issues which Dr. Hseih "claims" he finds important!

Third, the presumption that the legalization of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage is GOOD thing and that the absence of these conditions is WRONG reflects a strange perspective that all prior conditions of life, social structure and law in America were WRONG and "unenlightened". This kind of intolerance for the values and the perspectives of those who formed, built and made Western Civilization, America and the freedoms which we all cherish is an example of the left-wing and secular belief: "I am the crown of creation. All those who preceded me were stupid unless they agree with me". Such an attitude should lead any thinking person to question if Dr. Hseih could ever have been "Conservative", much less Republican.

Fourth, the idea of freedom "from Religion" is silly on its face. This is leftist dribble, arguing that religious voters do not have the right to freedom of speech or to vote their beliefs. It is not only anti-democratic, it is intolerant and elitist. Can Dr. Hseih really argue that he does not want to force his positions regarding abortion, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage on others? Laughable.

Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the Bible (specifically what is called the "Old Testament") would be aware of the prevalence of "Mosaic" law in English Common law and, consequently, the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. People used to know this, but then, people used to know their Bibles.

The demand that religious values be separated from the legal system leads to a totalitarian conundrum, the perception of which the Left is apparently immune. They seem to believe and take as a "Constitutional" truth the following perspective: "All political views (including secular, socialist, or anti-religious views) have the right, through the power of the ballot box, to express their view and effect changes in the laws which affect their fellow citizens UNLESS WE THINK THOSE POLITICAL VIEWS ARE INFORMED BY A RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM."

I can only conclude that Dr. Hseih is a card-carrying liberal, ill informed and an anti-religious bigot. He is certainly NOT a Conservative, and I am willing to bet is not a Republican, his claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Thank you for bothering to read my post.

1393 BLBfootballs  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 10:51:38am

re: #1372 quickjustice

The Clinton and Bush Administrations and the GOP-controlled Congress succumbed to the temptation to use the federal government to impose a social conservative agenda in several areas, Defense of Marriage, Faith-Based Initiatives, and abortion among them.

Important as these issues may be to people of faith, it was a huge strategic mistake to federalize them. The federal government should have been used to make clear that state legislatures, and initiative and referendum, are the appropriate places for these sorts of decisions, not Washington. Concentrating power in Washington plays into the dysfunction of FDR and the New Deal, and Johnson and the Great Society, building massive national entitlement bureaucracies that ordinary citizens cannot control, and the Congress cannot, and will not, oversee.

Faith-based initiatives was about allowing religious institutions to get the same benefits as non-religious institutions for non-religious, social programs (charity, food, shelter, job training, etc.). Is that really a big problem?

It is simply not possible to send the definition of marriage off to each state to decide for itself, because each state is required to recognize the documents and legal decisions of every other state. For there to be a universal definition of marriage in the US it ultimately needs to be handled at the federal level.

And again, most conservatives are happy to allow the limits of abortion to be defined democratically by the voters of each state instead of being judicially proclaimed. Congressional Republicans know full well that there is not a majority in America for a sweeping federal ban on abortion, and most of them don't want it anyway. Abortion really belongs as a states' rights issue.

re: #1366 Charles

OK, the religious right has influenced a plank of the platform... So? But which party is really more in thrall to its extremists? The real anger on the right over abortion is that it came from a judicial diktat. If it could be decided through a community by community democratic process I don't think there would be any wide support for a Constitutional amendment--the support exists because the far left has demonstrated that the only way to prevent leftist policies from being decreed from on high is to amend the Constitution. No matter what elections decide, the far left finds a sympathetic judge to overturn the majority and get its desired policies imposed.

More generally I think a real problem on something like abortion and the Constitution is that many people allow their fear of religious influence to blind them to the decent non-religiously-based arguments that militate, for example, for a more conservative approach to the issue. The fact that such arguments have traction does not mean that a theocracy is impending or even that theocrats are ascendant. The overwhelming majority of even the religious right admire the Constitution and hold opinions that are well within the mainstream of historical Constitutionalism in America.

1394 Yashmak  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 10:55:15am
Everyone might be better served in these debates if we could start from the assumption that our opponents are not obsessed monsters, but human beings who have come to different conclusions on important issues.

- Charles

This comment is key, and I fear it will be ignored by all sides of this discussion if not emphasized repeatedly.

1395 Jed  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 10:57:08am

I whole heartedly agree with Dr. Hsieh in all that he said.

But I voted for McCain because of Obama's dovish foreign policy thoughts. The safety of the US is more important than social matters. It was a tough decision.

1396 Salamantis  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 11:19:07am

re: #1299 combatwombat

Here's the thing: I love capitalism and fiscal conservatism. But check this out: Your text to link...

If you can look at that and think it's acceptable to take that thing, crush its skull and suck out its brains, under any circumstances, then I just don't know what to say. I love capitalism to death and hate socialism as much as the next guy, but I refuse to be a part of any organization that is OK with killing what is pictured there.

So you prefer desperate women to shove coathangers and knitting needles into their vaginas, and bleed to death in their bathrooms, like this woman?

Image: gerri.jpg

1397 A440Hz  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 11:25:25am

Must-read article here in reference to Jefferson and his approach towards religion in the public square.

It's sad to me that folks don't recognize that abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, and other such issues are moral in nature, that they have a large effect on society, and that someone's set of moral values will be used to decide each one of these issues.

It isn't about religion in politics; it's about what's right and wrong. Murder, rape, and theft are illegal because they are wrong. There can be a healthy debate about why they are wrong (pragmatism, biblical absolutes, etc.), but they are considered wrong by just about every society.

Societies that allow their most vulnerable to be killed because they are inconvenient or which allow the most fundamental societal institution to be redefined to the whims of a loud minority are societies which are committing moral suicide, IMHO. Actual death to follow. Film at 11.

1398 firedupengineer  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 11:32:58am

Re: On Losing Votes:

I have no doubt this physician's viewpoint may describe why McCain and the Republicans lost a few votes, but I maintain that, by far, the two largest reasons for lost Republican votes are:
1) the MSM's complete, unadulterated, biased reporting of the campaigns, and
2) the ~$650 million of contributions to the BHO campaign (an untold amount of which came from foreign contributors).

1399 Yashmak  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 11:33:15am
It isn't about religion in politics; it's about what's right and wrong. Murder, rape, and theft are illegal because they are wrong. There can be a healthy debate about why they are wrong (pragmatism, biblical absolutes, etc.), but they are considered wrong by just about every society.

- A440Hz

That's the thing though, a huge portion of the population of this nation either doesn't believe abortion is murder at all, or believe it's only murder once a certain point has been reached in the pregnancy. Fact is, 61% of the nations in this world allow abortion in one form or another. Only 1/4 of the world's population lives in nations where it is illegal. I'm not saying we should follow the world's lead. . .I'm just saying that there's obviously a great deal of disagreement on the fundamental issue that abortion is (or isn't) murder.

This is the key issue from which, and to which return, all arguments on the topic. It's an argument that's not likely to be won by either side, any time soon.

1400 rexatosis  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 11:34:35am

I know the thread is long and probably tired by now but I will throw in my two cents on this since I live in the Northeast and I have a lot of friends and aquaintances who have split from the GOP over "Social Conservatism." Most claim they are taking a libertarian position from the imposition of Conservative Christian values on American Society. This position is driven by the MSM's framing of the issues involved. For example embryonic stem cells. While Christians may have an issue on moral grounds so do Humanists. The MSM frames the debate in terms of abortion yet neglects to raise concerns with the "rights of man." The benefit of embryonic stem cells for those working in the field is not that they have a fundamentally greater scientific benefit but that if you clone it you can patent it, thus own it (one cannot patent the results of experimentation with adult stem cells since they are donated and can not be "owned" in a commercial sense for the purpose of patenting. Follow the money). There is little debate regarding how the patenting of human life (and a human embryo is human life by definition regardless of whether one extends "rights" to that life at that point of the life cycle) will have on our concept of our inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." For those who have widely read the disutopian writings of Huxley, Orwell, and even H.G. Wells (Island of Dr. Moreau etc.) one can imagine where we could be headed with "Clones." Similarly the issue of Gay Marriage will have a profound impact on inheritance rights, adoption rights (examine Roman use of adoption in this regard), the stability of social security, etc, yet if one brings up any of these issues one is branded a Christian zealot. The "secular-humanist" position on these issues is as inflexible, if not more so, than the corresponding Judeo-Christian religous viewpoint and had alot less historical evidence supporting it. Furthermore any attempt to discuss the ramifications of the adoption of these positions on the commonweal is verboten since we cannot inject "religion" into the public debate. Essentially the "secular-humanist" position has killed God, replacing Him with Man, then claims to hold a higher moral point by not being religious. This is akin to the Roman Emperors declaring themselves gods, then claiming divine infallability when questioned. It does not make for good public policy debates and makes for poor public policy and awful consequences from those decisions.

1401 Land Shark  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 11:57:26am

Dr. Hsieh is a poster boy for cluelessness. The Republican Party had embraced these socially conservative stands long before the 2008 election. Indeed, they supported them during the elections where he claims he supported the GOP. The Religious Right has been a part of the GOP supporting electorate for a long time. And now he notices them?

Of course, he and other people advancing this poppycock conveniently ignore that bans on gay marriage passed overwhelmingly where ever they were proposed. The notion that the GOP's embrace of socially conservative stands cost them election is easily debunked by anyone who's been paying attention. Conservatives would be well served not to pay to much attention to these "pundits", in my humble opinion. Being more like Democrats has been the problem with the GOP, not the solution.

1402 neomexicon  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:00:53pm

but the biggest enemy of the left is the religious right.
isn't that a good thing?

1403 jayker  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:03:39pm

Regarding the Colorado Doctor,

Thanks but no thanks. I recommend that you spend more time studying the constitution before you use your considerable self-esteem to change the face of the cultural and political discourse in this country.

It is not the governments role to protect my right to practice my religion privately. Wherever did you dream that up? The government has no right concerning my religion or your secular materialistic creed for that matter. My right as a Citizen of this great country is to be able to practice my religion privately and PUBLICLY. Further, the Government is forbidden by the bill of rights to make any laws that inhibit the free practice of my religion- in any venue- public or private.

To my fellow physician I suggest that you vote democrat in the future or perhaps libertarian, if indeed libertarians are for the suppression of the public practice of religion, which I doubt that they are.

Jayker md

1404 diminuendo  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:04:47pm

I totally agree, but don't like to cut off my nose when my face pisses me off. I voted McCain.

1405 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:29:48pm

For the record, as I posted on election day, I voted for McCain-Palin. By the end of the election, I had a lot less enthusiasm for them, though. And I didn't have much enthusiasm for McCain to begin with.

But I always get hate mail for bringing up these kinds of subjects. I had two emails about my "anti-Christian slant" today, even though I don't have an anti-Christian bone in my body. One demanded that I "delete" his account, he was so pissed off.

I do believe Hsieh makes a serious and valid point about far-right religious groups having too much influence on the GOP's policies and image.

I don't mean to get people angry, but these subjects can no longer be avoided. If that means you now despise me and want to cancel your account, I'll gladly cancel your account. I don't need the headaches, and we can use the DB space.

1406 Archimedes  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 12:59:43pm

re: #1401 Land Shark

Dr. Hsieh is a poster boy for cluelessness. The Republican Party had embraced these socially conservative stands long before the 2008 election.

He knew this, but never agreed with it. What the republican party has done is push the welfare state and done nothing to roll back the size and scope of government. Iows, they have done the opposite of what a party that supports individual rights would do. You have to eliminate taxes and regulations and free people up. Bush has massively increased the size of government.

He, like me, probably voted republican because he considered it to be the lesser of two evils.


Of course, he and other people advancing this poppycock conveniently ignore that bans on gay marriage passed overwhelmingly where ever they were proposed. The notion that the GOP's embrace of socially conservative stands cost them election is easily debunked by anyone who's been paying attention. Conservatives would be well served not to pay to much attention to these "pundits", in my humble opinion. Being more like Democrats has been the problem with the GOP, not the solution.

He's not saying "be more like Democrats". He's saying, uphold individual rights. The republicans have been violating our rights just as much as the democrats.

1407 Semi Cartman  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 1:15:32pm

re: #1389 Iron Fist

...Anarchism is, at its core, the most violent of the violent collectivist doctrines...


It's always the precursor of totalitarianism. Anarchists are the most useful of idiots. They don't live long afterwards, though.

1408 DonS  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 1:18:05pm

Well, I'm not religious, but I don't think the religious right cause this loss. Rather, this was going to be a hard year for any Republican candidate, and on top of that the financial crisis and the bailout--supported by Bush and McCain--was the final straw.

Note that here in San Diego, Prop 8 won but so did Obama . . .

A key problem for Republicans is that religious and socially conservative blacks and Hispanics vote Democrat no matter what.

1409 onthow  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 1:25:09pm

A ban on embryonic stem cell research, Dr. Hsieh? No, a ban on taxpayer funded embryonic cell research.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."
-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law"

1410 Irish Rose  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 1:49:05pm

Late to the party on this one, but I read the whole article.

Absolutely SPOT ON, in my opinion.

1411 Irish Rose  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 1:55:59pm

re: #1405 Charles

For the record, as I posted on election day, I voted for McCain-Palin. By the end of the election, I had a lot less enthusiasm for them, though. And I didn't have much enthusiasm for McCain to begin with.

But I always get hate mail for bringing up these kinds of subjects. I had two emails about my "anti-Christian slant" today, even though I don't have an anti-Christian bone in my body. One demanded that I "delete" his account, he was so pissed off.

I do believe Hsieh makes a serious and valid point about far-right religious groups having too much influence on the GOP's policies and image.

I don't mean to get people angry, but these subjects can no longer be avoided. If that means you now despise me and want to cancel your account, I'll gladly cancel your account. I don't need the headaches, and we can use the DB space.

So Charles, the hate mail that you have coming in is from the Christian right... right?

I'm sure that you're aware that I'm also a Christian.
I see a lot of crap coming from the Christian right these days that absolutely turns my stomach... some of these people wouldn't know what it means to be Christlike if their lives depended on it.

You're doing valuable work Charles, keep it up.

1412 DisturbedEma  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 2:04:49pm

re: #965 formercorpsman

Without a doubt. I have actually made that part of my discussions here before.

HHS is the largest government budget in the world. If Obama implements a fraction of what he promised on the campaign trail, it blows by the trillion dollar mark easily.

In your position, you are right, defacto acquiescence of your rights to the government.

With that being said, I think it is a very valid argument for someone who feels abortion is murder, to feel as if they are funding it via their taxation, they have every right to stand up and protest as such.

I will go you one further- We, as tax payers, should demand full disclsure of spending- and our rights to privacy should not be frittered away by the lure of "free health care for all"

1413 DisturbedEma  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 2:05:53pm

re: #1411 Irish Rose

So Charles, the hate mail that you have coming in is from the Christian right... right?

I'm sure that you're aware that I'm also a Christian.
I see a lot of crap coming from the Christian right these days that absolutely turns my stomach... some of these people wouldn't know what it means to be Christlike if their lives depended on it.

You're doing valuable work Charles, keep it up.

Hate mail. . .yeah, from my former liberal Democratic party members. . .sigh

1414 Hanoch  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 2:38:05pm

Mr. Hsieh's view is simplistic and, ultimately, intolerant.

In a Republic such as the US, legislation is based on the citizens' view of morality. Morality, for many--if not the majority of--citizens, is based on religion. Indeed, of all the Western democracies, the US is among the most religious.

What Mr. Hsieh is really advocating, albeit indirectly, is disenfranchising religious citizens from their political rights. Stated differently, the only way to divorce legislation from religion is to preclude those citizens who base their morality on religious precepts from having a voice in the legislative process. This is absurd and inconsistent with the foundations upon which this country was founded.

In the US, everyone should have a voice in the legislative process, irrespective of whether they derive their moral views from religious or secular precepts. If that upsets Mr. Hsieh, he'll have to live with it, just like those in the religious camp have to live with his right to advocate legislation based on his own view of morality, whatever its source may be.

And because Mr. Hsieh is fond of citing the "Founding Fathers" to support his position, he would do well to recall the actual words of one of them, George Washington, in his Farewell Address on the subject:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

1415 amateurpundit  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 2:42:25pm

To suggest that the Republicans would have a snowball's chance in hell without the religious right is fatuous. I'm not a Christian...but without the Christian Right, the Republicans are back to permanent minority status. I will admit that there are many Republicans who think that people who oppose gay marriage and abortion represent some kind of threat. I've never quite figured out what that threat is. That someone will disapprove of you? Poor thing.

1416 jayker  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 3:24:54pm

re: #1405 Charles

Charles,

My goodness how many hundreds and thousands of subscribers do you have? Only two complained by e-mail today, not minions?

The Republicans are fools to pay too much attention to any brutish interest group- right wing or left, religious or secular, Christian or Islamic or Jewish or Zoroastrian or the society of Humanism and free love.

The good Doctor in my opinion has a cuddly simple minded idea about the Constitution and its obligations to we the People.

Much of this anti Religious zealotry has to do with basic beliefs about the nature of Man and the reality of being. Man the measure of all things? Matter all that there is? Does transcendent reality exist and is it important? Is there any truth to the historic revelations of Judeo-Christian religion or is there only Scientific Materialism in varied guises?

The Constitution is a marvelous document. The Republican Party has become a sad good old boy network of political insiders playing to the cultural elites who certainly are not essentially religious but rather political and economic animals seeking power. The religious Americans present and future will remain active players in shaping the City of Man as best they can and in a context of antagonism toward the smug secularism of the cultural elites.


Jayker

1417 heyou  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 3:41:46pm

re: comment 1386 Iron Fist- I'll say it slooowly-to give the unborn 14th amendment rights is absurd. You saaay that a crisis pregnancy is like "justifiable homicide" against a home invader. Well, giving the unborn 14th amendment rights is like giving that home invader an equal right to your home and the right to shoot at you in "self defense" when you try to defend your self or your home.
I am not trying to "dehumanize the fetus"- the fetus is a potential human the woman is the actual born human and as such the woman comes first. When I say abortion should be permitted to save women's lives-I include the lives of women who have died from illegal, unsafe abortions. I count those women as LIVES that matter.
You call abortion homicide as if there's a moral equivalence between someone shooting a toddler and a woman taking RU486. They are not the same. Trust me, if you are ever faced with the moral decision of saving a toddler or a two week old unborn child-save the toddler.
RE: Charles comment I have been a lurker for a looong time. Your blog was my education back in the day-I learned so much here. I think it's great that you bring up this topic because woman hatred is important-TO US ALL. It's a very lonely position to be against BOTH Jew hatred and woman hatred. People seem to go one way or the other-left or right, few walk the middle line. Am Yisrael Chai!

1418 angst  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 3:48:00pm

This isn't just a Republican issue. The exact same thing happened with Prop. 8 in California. It makes me laugh that the Democrats cannot believe that not everyone will follow the party line on social issues. I'm like, welcome to the club!

Gay rights are to the Dems as religion is to the Republicans.

1419 Hanoch  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 3:52:24pm

re: #1417 heyou

If you are going to proclaim "Am Yisrael Chai", you might also want to familiarize yourself with Halacha, which generally forbids a woman from having an abortion except in very extreme circumstances, such as when the pregnancy places her life at risk.

1420 green_earth  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 4:06:52pm

Interesting how the republican party pulls at each other from both ends, and the democrats march in unison towards socialism. Probably it's because the MSM doesn't like to publish anything to hurt the democratic party. It is rare that you hear about long-time democrats leaving the party because of their pro-abortion, anti-religious, pro-gay, and liberal-social ideology. Is it time for a third party?

1421 DANEgerus  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 4:09:23pm

To have a political spectrum there must be opposite views on a particular subject. The polar opposite of Collectivist-Left is not "Compassionate Conservativism" but individual liberty best represented by Libertarianism.

That is not to say the loony Libertarians who you read about in the news, but true Conservatives, represent the Libertarian ideal of Individualist-Right.

This gentleman claims to be a "I used to be a Republican But"... yet he says he can't vote (R)epublican because the "Religious Right" works to "ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage" and then he perpetuates they Jeffersonian myth that "there should be a ”wall of separation“ between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines".

First, Jefferson mentioned the ”wall of separation“ once in a letter sent decades after the Constitution was adopted. Although I support the concept of a ”wall of separation“ I am not so arrogant as to argue that canard. Perhaps he might read the Federatlist Papers and review his own statements?

Second, "gay marriage" is not a "right" but a social preference that Gays are entitled to already. Any person may marry one of the opposite sex. To force a "change" over the will of the society that indulges such contracts with preferential treatment is both collectivist totalitarianism and an indulgence of a self-defined professional victims' group with a history of anti-Christian activity. The 'Gay activist' lobby is currently "demonstrating" all of their hateful excess.

Third, stem cell research is a wonderful, privately funded, success that is making many investors rich. Embryonic stem cell research is a black-hole of failure seeking tax-payer funded subsidies. Why is it a Lefty always howls about the 'evil drug companies' yet now demand that the tax-payer subsidize those very same 'evil drug companies'?

Finally, whether you believe life begins at conception or not, a child is viable outside of the mother long before birth. Ask yourself why we spend billions to save premature births if the whim of a mother is enough reason to murder that child? If you saw a car sinking into a river and dove in to save the family would you not reach for the child before the mother?

You will notice none of my arguments are based on Religious grounds. I just happen to notice that the Collectivist-Left aganda of the "Religious Right" is consistent with government getting out of my life, yet in opposition to my reasoning as their arguments would involve the morality of the collective society.

The reality is that the "Religious Right" is a myth, they in fact represent the Collectivist-Left of the "RightWing" mostly defined by the opposition in the (D)emocrat party. For does anyone doubt the collectivist inclinations of a Church? They have been drivin into our arms, yet a schism exists because they are not truly 'of us' on the Individualist-Right.

But unless you want to leave government to the self-perpetuating professional politicians of the Collectivist-Left you better find some common ground, like I have, and embrace those that will work with you reasonably.

1422 Salamantis  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 4:15:36pm

Here's the problem. 1.8 million more Religious right voters cast their ballots for McCain/Palin 08 than cast them for Bush/Cheney 04. However, these extra votes came at a lethal cost, as 6.4 FEWER moderates voted for McCain/Palin 08 than voted for Bush/Cheney 04.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

We can't win this way. The center is refusing to vote for a candidate who is considered to be owned by a party's extreme wing, and like it or not, the majority moderate voter perception was that Obama was less beholden to his leftist fringe than McCain was beholden to his hard right.

To quote from the article:

In the wake of the Democrats' landslide victory, and despite all evidence to the contrary, many in the GOP are arguing that John McCain was defeated because the social fundamentalists wouldn't support him. They seem to be suffering from a political strain of Stockholm syndrome. They are identifying with the interests of their political captors and ignoring the views of the larger electorate. This has cost the Republican Party the votes of millions of people who don't find a willingness to acquiesce to hostage-takers a positive trait in potential leaders.

Unless the Republican Party ends its self-imposed captivity to social fundamentalists, it will spend a long time in the political wilderness. On Nov. 4, the American people very clearly rejected the politics of demonization and division. It's long past time for the GOP to do the same.

1423 heyou  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 4:19:05pm

you know what they say-two Jews three opinions-halacha also takes a woman's anguish into account -I'm not going to argue halacha here because I don't think this is the place for it and I am a woman and not a rabbi.

1424 nikis-knight  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 4:27:38pm

re: #1235 Dan G.

Life? Of the cell, or the organism? Cells with the human genome aren't individual humans, yet. Individuality begins when the INFANT is physically separated from its mother. Its not an issue of alive versus not alive, it is an issue of "individual human being" vs. "dependent potential human being".

Abortion is completely moral. Sacrificing an existing individual to a potential one is not moral and to try and force such a situation would be an egregious infraction of individual rights.

I fault your logic, for rarely is the trade off the actual life of the mother, and much rarer still would anyone restrict such an abortion.
Sacrifing an existing individual's comfort for some time for the very life of an immanent individual that they brought to life is a very different matter, and is what is in fact opposed, not your strawman.

1425 heyou  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 4:30:15pm

oops that last comment was to Hanoch

1426 nikis-knight  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 4:37:43pm

re: #1298 Sharmuta

A constitutional ban on abortions is a plank of the platform.

Hmmm, and why do you think that is? Pehaps because the only way the 2,999,991 citizens in the united states that are not on the supreme court can have a say on the issue is by amending the constitution, since the farce that is RvW has taken it out of the hands of the state & federal elected branches of government.

1427 Baelzar  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 4:47:01pm

We need a third party that:

1) Is strictly for smaller government, as little tax as possible, state's rights, and very restricted federal powers, and

2) is pro-choice.

Normally, I'd champion the Libertarian Party, but they've gone stupid. They're old and tired anyways; people these days need something shiny and new (like our next President, sigh) to focus upon.

The Republicans...won't learn. The attitudes in this country towards abortion, the drug war, obscenity laws, and morality legislation have changed. They'll continue to lose.

1428 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 5:11:11pm

re: #1426 nikis-knight

Hmmm, and why do you think that is?

To pander to the religious right by giving them a symbolic and unobtainable bar with which to measure the rest of us.

1429 LesLein  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 5:26:19pm

Dear Mr. Hsieh:

Chill down. Your mommy was pro-life.

1430 Fearless Fred  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:38:51pm

re: #1426 nikis-knight

Hmmm, and why do you think that is? Pehaps because the only way the 2,999,991 citizens in the united states that are not on the supreme court can have a say on the issue is by amending the constitution, since the farce that is RvW has taken it out of the hands of the state & federal elected branches of government.

wow ... just wow! SHAR --- I thought we got all that like, yesterday?

...no?

1431 Fearless Fred  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 6:48:35pm

re: #1421 DANEgerus

Second, "gay marriage" is not a "right" but a social preference that Gays are entitled to already. Any person may marry one of the opposite sex. To force a "change" over the will of the society that indulges such contracts with preferential treatment is both collectivist totalitarianism and an indulgence of a self-defined professional victims' group with a history of anti-Christian activity. The 'Gay activist' lobby is currently "demonstrating" all of their hateful excess.

nicely put!

1432 Salamantis  Mon, Nov 17, 2008 9:15:58pm

re: #1421 DANEgerus

Second, "gay marriage" is not a "right" but a social preference that Gays are entitled to already. Any person may marry one of the opposite sex. To force a "change" over the will of the society that indulges such contracts with preferential treatment is both collectivist totalitarianism and an indulgence of a self-defined professional victims' group with a history of anti-Christian activity. The 'Gay activist' lobby is currently "demonstrating" all of their hateful excess.

How about simply saying that any adult citizen can marry any other adult citizen? Or simply extend the protections of marriage to gay couples without the word, if you're that attached to it. I do know one thing; demanding that gays establish straight enduring legal relationships or none at all is as sick, twisted, warped and demented as demading that straights establish gay enduring relationships or none at all would be. Demanding that anyone act so counter to their born natures is pure and utter evil.

Finally, whether you believe life begins at conception or not, a child is viable outside of the mother long before birth. Ask yourself why we spend billions to save premature births if the whim of a mother is enough reason to murder that child? If you saw a car sinking into a river and dove in to save the family would you not reach for the child before the mother?

I'm willing to draw the line at fetal viability; that gives women plenty of time to decide and to act on their decisions. But if you believe that the decision to abort is a whim, like choosing a hairstyle or a nail color at a salon, you are a shining sterling doofus. As a former NOW clinic escort, I have conversed with many of these women. Most of them agonize over their decisions. But once their decisions are made, a high percentage of them will risk death in order to go through with those decisions. They feel the same kind of desperation that a wild animal feels when it chews its paw off to escape a trap. If abortion was ever again outlawed, the back alley butchers would be back in business, women would once again be found hemorrhaged to death in their bathrooms with coathangers or knitting needles protruding from their vaginas, the rich would jet offshore for special spa treatments, and a black market for RU-486 would spring into existence.

1433 daveham  Tue, Nov 18, 2008 5:59:20am

What happened to the "big tent"?

1434 kirk  Tue, Nov 18, 2008 11:01:44am

Anyone who claims to "believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans", but voted for Obama et al because he's "alienated by the Republicans' embrace of the religious ”social conservative“ agenda" is a myopic fool.

1435 iowavette  Tue, Nov 18, 2008 12:22:21pm

Well, Kirk, one can't hardly improve on your comment. While not Christian, I sure in the hell give them the respect they deserve as Americans and conservatives. Clearly, the doctor had his head turned by the incessant anti-Christian drumbeat of the mainstream media. He's rationalizing even to himself.

1436 WOHBuckeye  Tue, Nov 18, 2008 12:25:15pm

So basically, this RINO didn't vote for Republicans because they weren't enough like the Democrats for him. That's enough for me.

About the only institution in this country that hasn't been taken over by the left is religion. Yet we're supposed to tell those who support it to go to hell, just so we can appeal to some moderates who won't vote for us anyway. Just how many supposed John McCain "supporters" in the primary jumped ship to Obama in time for the pre-election cocktail parties? Too many to count.

1437 nikis-knight  Tue, Nov 18, 2008 12:35:18pm

re: #1430 Fearless Fred

wow ... just wow! SHAR --- I thought we got all that like, yesterday?

...no?

Ummm... what? Your response is incomprehensible.

1438 Joan  Tue, Nov 18, 2008 6:12:56pm

re: #1387 Charles

My point is that by demonizing the pro-stem cell research side, you're engaging in exactly the kind of politicization you're decrying.

Everyone might be better served in these debates if we could start from the assumption that our opponents are not obsessed monsters, but human beings who have come to different conclusions on important issues...

[emphasis added]

Charles, I take your point. However, since I promised to search the literature, here is a small part of what I found. Of course all will be relieved to know that the defaults in place at lgf will not allow me to post it all. ;-)

Let’s start with the best link, which supports your contention (see quote) One can download the collected essays and reports in pdf format at this website: [Link: www.bioethics.gov...]

There is a lot of information on bioethics—it is overwhelming actually. No doubt, there are some excellent articles in periodical publications like Science or Nature. Unfortunately, maybe I’m not used to using my Highbeam Research membership here-- that service does not seem to have access to those. It seems odd, since those are very standard science publications for the general public.

Now, here are links to the kind of arrogance, or is it extreme detachment, that got me in a polemical dither. These are some of the most influential bioethics thinkers, they are Ivy League and intellectual cream of the crop. They are actively seeking to redefine what is an acceptable framework for discussing bioethics. In brief:

Professor Ronald Green of Dartmouth College, “Toward a Copernican Revolution in Our Thinking About Life’s Beginning and Life’s End” (Soundings, Summer 1983). a critic's synopsis: "...those of us who wield power in society can band together and define other people (especially the very young and very old) in and out of personhood...Human dignity has to go: autonomy is more relevant and useful.”

Steven Pinker, Dept. Psychology, Harvard, “The Stupidity of Dignity” New Republic article, May 2008

Ruth Macklin: Professor of Bioethics, Dept of Epidemiology and Social Medicine - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, “Dignity is a Useless Concept” [Link: www.bmj.com...]
Basically draws distinction between: Ethical Universals vs Ethical Absolutes, i.e.: cultural diversity and bioethics. As I understand what I did read, she contends that it is ethical to use the world’s poor people as test subjects—shouldn’t they be grateful for any treatment, even experimental and unproven—when they are so poor that presently they have no treatment at all. Her stance in the linked article, the gist is: “respect for dignity is vague; respect for persons, (as bioethics define persons) and respect for human autonomy are better concepts and more useful concepts.”

Peter Singer, the Ira B. DeCamp professor of bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton, New Yorker Magazine named him “world’s most influential thinker.” He has been quoted in many places, with variations on: “human babies have no greater moral value than snails.” Also supports infanticide, defends bestiality so long as the animal is not harmed. [I’m not joking. And he is at Princeton] Find extensive article in Reason Magazine: “...he believes animals have rights because the relevant moral consideration is not whether a being can reason or talk but whether it can suffer. Jettisoning the traditional distinction between humans and nonhumans, Singer distinguishes instead between persons and non-persons. Persons are beings that feel, reason, have self-awareness, and look forward to a future. Thus, fetuses and some very impaired human beings are not persons in his view"

1439 Joan  Tue, Nov 18, 2008 6:19:24pm

Conclusion to bioethics post:

The counter to objections about dignity of the human being is that respect for persons, for personhood is insufficient when science through bioethics can be redefine who is a person and what is a human; further, the dignity of the human being is a valid concept, because it is explicit in that dignity that all human beings whatever their degree of autonomy implicitly fall within the category of beings for whom the human society bears responsibility. Human dignity as a concept in bioethics preserves in our culture and the organized society, a mandate to care for and protect human beings who cannot meet standards of autonomy or ability.

In fact, this is, in my opinion, the motivation and the energy, the rising tide and zeitgeist that is the wind beneath their wings: to redefine and discard human dignity and install a new paradigm, of autonomy. It solves a lot, and it releases society and culture from a number of onerous burdens and boundaries. Yes, it says, the genetic heritage may spell human, but impairment, defectiveness, dependency are factors that outweigh mere genetics or potentiality. A clump of cells is not a person, even if an autonomous human being would eventually develop if the clump is allowed to progress to viability. It circumvents the whole issue of “when does life begin,” with a neat countering question of “when is a human potentiality, or genetic heritage that is specifically human, to be defined as a person?”

A bioethics that supports my thinking is represented in the works of:

Eric Cohen, The New Atlantis
[Link: www.thenewatlantis.com...]
Leon Kass, University of Chicago, “Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity” (article excerpt from First Things Marc Guerra, Feb 2003)
“Trained professionally as a physician and biochemist, Kass has taught courses in philosophy and literature for the past twenty-eight years at the University of Chicago. A prolific essayist, he has published books on the proper relation of biology and human affairs, the connection between eating and the perfection of human nature, and the deepest meanings of courtship and marriage. He defends the dignity of our given human nature in a world that is transformed almost daily by advances in science and technology.
Building on the analysis of thinkers such as Leo Strauss and Hans Jonas, Kass offers a rich reflection on the “philosophical foundations” of modern science. The philosophical architects of modern natural science, such as Bacon and Descartes, believed that if science were to successfully minister to human beings’ needs, it would have to alter its basic theoretical posture. Whereas ancient science tried to discover what things are, modern science would now focus on how they worked. Knowledge would be seen as desirable not for its own sake, but because it showed how things could be manipulated to fulfill our many desires. Consequently, modern science would effectively transform our view of nature itself. Nature could no longer be seen as “animated, purposive, and striving,” but as mere “dead matter in motion,” matter that could, and should, be mastered in order to bring about, in Bacon’s famous phrase, “the relief of man’s estate.” The very idea of modern science, as Kass shows, “contains manipulability at its theoretical core.”
Biotechnology is a variation on this larger scientific theme. But it is a particularly dangerous variation, since it allows for the technological manipulation of the manipulator himself. Biotechnology thus paves the way for the complete “medicalization of life and death.” [emphasis added]

1440 socratease  Wed, Nov 19, 2008 10:40:14am
I’ve become increasingly alienated by the Republicans“ embrace of the religious ”social conservative“ agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

I don't understand his point. National Republican candidates were not pushing any of these issues, and have not. Overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't ban abortions, it just keeps the federal government from dictating to states what they can do. Ditto gay marriage -- the point is to keep federal judges from running roughshod over democratically enacted social policies and dictating them by fiat. Nobody banned stem cell research, or even proposed that policy, they just said federal taxes shouldn't be used for it. The only people who consider that a "ban" must also think that government handouts are a Constitutional right, i.e. a socialist. None of these issues are "social conservatism" or pandering to the religious right, it's just plain old conservatism. Dr. Hsieh's political philosophy doesn't sound like anything I'd recognize as conservatism.

1441 Salamantis  Wed, Nov 19, 2008 11:47:33am

Since Joan neglected to provide a link for Steven Pinker's essay "The Stupidity of Dignity", I provide it here:

[Link: www.tnr.com...]

as they say; rtwt.

1442 Joan  Wed, Nov 19, 2008 2:00:39pm

re: #1363 Joan
"Is it really necessary to destroy or tinker with human embryos, is it the only way, what will be the consequences down the road?" vs "Stupid questions. Get out of our way."

Correction: Not all or perhaps even a majority of thinkers on this issue hold the callous attitude I ascribe to them in the referenced post.

However, one very powerful, prestigious, and highly influential faction does hold that attitude. Steven Pinker, Dept. Psychology, Harvard, “The Stupidity of Dignity” New Republic article, May 2008

Utilitarian bioethics is gaining ground, not only among other bioethics thinkers, but among the political class, university professors and students, and the interested general public. Utilitarian bioethics presently seems bent on supplanting existing distinctions about the dignity of the human person, with autonomy as the measure for deciding which beings are persons entitled to respect and status as persons. To hear these arguments from that school of thought is not rare.

One ought to be concerned, actually.

1443 goethe girl  Wed, Nov 19, 2008 2:30:11pm

Do you think the person is all he claims to be, i.e., lifelong Republican voter?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

Name:

Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? Account Settings Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

Turn off ads by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day, our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...


► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Your prose reeks of your reality.

TwitterFacebook
LGF Pages
Recent Pages

researchok
Putin Won't Go Quietly - if at All
2 minutes ago
Views: 22 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
12 Countries at Risk of New Economic Crises
2 minutes ago
Views: 13 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
Catholic Bishops Join Culture War on Obama: Margaret Carlson - Bloomberg
3 minutes ago
Views: 24 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
China Tells Clinton Syria Crisis Internal Matter
3 minutes ago
Views: 17 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
Wave of Downgrades: Moody's Delivers Damning Verdict on Euro Zone - News - International
3 minutes ago
Views: 17 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
Happy Hour for Assad: The World Community Must Act on Syria - News - International
4 minutes ago
Views: 18 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
Sex and Love: The Modern Matchmakers
4 minutes ago
Views: 16 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
Math Matters: A country's math skills are directly tied to its future wealth
5 minutes ago
Views: 17 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
Darwin on Lincoln and Vice Versa
5 minutes ago
Views: 16 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
Evolution World Tour: The Cradle of Humankind, South Africa
5 minutes ago
Views: 16 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

 Frank says:

I was writing all kinds of positive and negative canons and weird inverted this and retrograde that and getting as spaced-out mathematically as I could and I was going "Wait a minute (laughs), who cares about that stuff?" I had always liked rhythm and blues so here I was stuck between the slide rule and the gut bucket somewhere and I decided that I would opt for a third road someplace in between. -- From an 1972 interview to Martin Perlich. On giving up writing serial music.