An Open Letter to the Republican Party

Opinion • Views: 2,667

The Sensuous Curmudgeon writes an Open Letter to the Republican Party:

My fellow Republicans:

As our party is going though a much-needed period of introspection, please consider that there was a time when this party stood for the Constitution, the rule of law, national defense, free enterprise, limited government, low taxes, balanced budgets, and individual rights. We still honor those principles; but those who now govern have no concern for or even understanding of such matters.

While the other party has been winning elections and undermining everything we have traditionally valued, what issues dominate our political discourse? Our party has been talking about sex and religion.

When we say “sex,” we mean topics like abstinence, promiscuity, homosexuality, pre-marital relations, contraception, sodomy, nudity, pornography, masturbation, same-sex marriage, sex education, abortion, and morning-after pills. Does that list sound familiar? It should, because those are the issues that too often dominate your campaigns.

Except for late-term abortion, where the other party has an extreme position that could be exploited (except that it’s lost in a sea of other sex-related issues), there is absolutely no reason to discuss such matters as part of our party’s policies. The Constitution doesn’t give the federal government any authority over those issues. If they need to be addressed, it should be done only at the state level.

When we speak of religion, we mostly mean the current movement to insert religious doctrines into public school science classes, especially creationism and its love-child, intelligent design. It seems to us that this is a latter-day substitute for prayer in public schools, which is essentially a dead issue these days, but still a hot-button item. There are other religious issues, like objections to certain areas of biological research.

Our obsession with creationism and blocking biological research has earned us the reputation of being an anti-science party, which is a burden our adversaries are delighted to exploit — notwithstanding their Luddite opposition to nuclear energy, oil exploration, aerospace technology, etc. Aside from that, religious issues should not concern the national government — especially when we have so many vital matters — our traditional principles — that must be addressed before the republic is lost forever.

[…]

An inordinate emphasis on sex and religion makes hypocrites of half of us, and fools of all. More importantly, it will permanently marginalize the party, while the opponents of our traditional principles triumph.

[Cue applause from the Secular Torquemada…]

Read the whole thing…

Jump to bottom

860 comments
1 lostlakehiker  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:46:39pm

no kidding!

2 CapeCoddah  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:47:07pm

Nail on the head.

3 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:47:43pm

Good Letter

4 JCM  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:48:00pm

He writes that like there was something wrong with the dark ages.

5 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:48:04pm

Will get returned due to being undeliverable, address unknown, with postage due.

6 brookly red  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:48:30pm

wish it would fit on a tee-shirt...

7 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:48:35pm

re: #4 JCM

He writes that like there was something wrong with the dark ages.

You mean the black out of 1977, when the Bronx burned?

8 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:49:26pm

re: #6 brookly red

wish it would fit on a tee-shirt...

How about " Vote Republican, But keep the sex in your pants."

9 Kragar  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:49:35pm

Why does she hate the GOP?

/

10 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:49:53pm
As our party is going though a much-needed period of introspection, please consider that there was a time when this party stood for the Constitution, the rule of law, national defense, free enterprise, limited government, low taxes, balanced budgets, and individual rights. We still honor those principles; but those who now govern have no concern for or even understanding of such matters.

Barry Goldwater is rolling in his grave.

11 cicero05  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:49:54pm

All committed honcos should unite under these principles.

12 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:49:55pm

re: #4 JCM

He writes that like there was something wrong with the dark ages.

Guess it's time to party like it's 999.

13 Kragar  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:50:32pm

re: #12 FurryOldGuyJeans

Guess it's time to party like it's 999.

AD or BC?

14 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:51:00pm

re: #13 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

AD or BC?

Yes.

15 brookly red  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:51:13pm

re: #8 Nevergiveup

How about " Vote Republican, But keep the sex in your pants."

/I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.

16 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:51:32pm

By "biological research," does he mean embryonic stem cell research? I assume he does, as that's the only biological research I'm aware of that conservatives do not want the federal government to fund--but I do not recall any Republicans calling for the banning of private funding or research.

I do not agree that this position makes Republicans "antiscience."

17 JCM  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:51:39pm

re: #14 FurryOldGuyJeans

Yes.

You Millennial party animal you.

18 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:51:41pm
To know what issues appeal not only to Republicans, but also to most Americans, consider Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America, the most successful thing we’ve done since nominating Ronald Reagan

A-frickin'-men!

19 Kragar  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:52:28pm

re: #14 FurryOldGuyJeans

Yes.

Kinky

20 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:52:56pm

re: #17 JCM

You Millennial party animal you.

The way the GOP is going a good drunken wake is all there is to look forward to.

21 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:53:58pm
The Constitution doesn’t give the federal government any authority over those issues. If they need to be addressed, it should be done only at the state level.

Isn't that the also the truth about teaching ID in public schools?

22 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:54:43pm

re: #18 Sharmuta

A-frickin'-men!

Common sense that gets ignored once one crosses the Beltway.

23 J.D.  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:55:21pm

re: #21 MandyManners

Isn't that the also the truth about teaching ID in public schools?

Yes, I believe it is up to the states.

24 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:56:07pm

re: #16 goddessoftheclassroom

By "biological research," does he mean embryonic stem cell research? I assume he does, as that's the only biological research I'm aware of that conservatives do not want the federal government to fund--but I do not recall any Republicans calling for the banning of private funding or research.

I do not agree that this position makes Republicans "antiscience."

W's position opposed public funding of embryonioc stem cell research, without oppostion to private funding.

25 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:56:13pm

re: #16 goddessoftheclassroom

By "biological research," does he mean embryonic stem cell research? I assume he does, as that's the only biological research I'm aware of that conservatives do not want the federal government to fund--but I do not recall any Republicans calling for the banning of private funding or research.

I do not agree that this position makes Republicans "antiscience."

I agree. Embryonic stem cells have not shown any promise at all.

26 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:56:23pm

re: #8 Nevergiveup

How about " Vote Republican, But keep the sex in your pants."

In the pants?


27 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:56:52pm

re: #23 J.D.

Yes, I believe it is up to the states.

Doesn't it utlimately boil down to the local school districts?

28 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:56:52pm

re: #22 FurryOldGuyJeans

Common sense that gets ignored once one crosses the Beltway.

Nope- IIRC, the House republicans passed all the measures on the Contract but one. I think it's very appealing to the electorate to be told, "this is what we're going to do" and follow up the words with actions.

This is why the republicans lost the House and Senate- they stopped following up their words with actions.

29 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:56:53pm

re: #13 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

AD or BC?

You mean CE or BCE?
(for those non-Christian lizards)
(AD = "anno domini" = "in the year of our Lord", which is incorrect for non-Christians. To me, it is 5769)
/just being picky before I leave work

30 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:56:55pm

re: #21 MandyManners

Isn't that the also the truth about teaching ID in public schools?

Both parties seem to want to ignore the Constitution to further their agenda.

31 JCM  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:57:21pm

re: #21 MandyManners

Isn't that the also the truth about teaching ID in public schools?

Yep, fight it state by state.

Not that it will matter.

Congress has decided the BCS needs an investigation.

32 CapeCoddah  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:57:38pm

re: #23 J.D.

Yes, I believe it is up to the states.

Right now, it is a violation of federal law to teach ID in the classroom. Charles posted a thread a few days ago dealing with a federal decision handed down in December making that crystal clear.

33 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:57:54pm

re: #16 goddessoftheclassroom

By "biological research," does he mean embryonic stem cell research? I assume he does, as that's the only biological research I'm aware of that conservatives do not want the federal government to fund--but I do not recall any Republicans calling for the banning of private funding or research.

I do not agree that this position makes Republicans "antiscience."

No matter what the stance actually is, the FMSM and the Dems will paint it in the worst possible light.

34 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:58:12pm

re: #16 goddessoftheclassroom

By "biological research," does he mean embryonic stem cell research? I assume he does, as that's the only biological research I'm aware of that conservatives do not want the federal government to fund--but I do not recall any Republicans calling for the banning of private funding or research.

I do not agree that this position makes Republicans "antiscience."

The MFM made it sound as if Pres. Bush out-lawed ALL research.

35 anotherindyfilmguy  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:58:29pm

re: #31 JCM

I'd rather they spent the next three years wrangling over that than spending our grandchildren into bankruptcy...

36 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:58:39pm

re: #28 Sharmuta

Nope- IIRC, the House republicans passed all the measures on the Contract but one. I think it's very appealing to the electorate to be told, "this is what we're going to do" and follow up the words with actions.

This is why the republicans lost the House and Senate- they stopped following up their words with actions.

That was then, I was talking about NOW, Sharm.

37 JCM  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:58:43pm

re: #27 MandyManners

Doesn't it utlimately boil down to the local school districts?

Depends, curricula is often set by the State with districts left to how to met the requirement.

38 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:58:43pm

re: #30 FurryOldGuyJeans

Both parties seem to want to ignore the Constitution to further their agenda.

We need to get up--and, stay--in their faces.

39 UncleRancher  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:58:48pm

Generally, Newt Gingrich is right on the mark. Evidence lies in the intense hatred-speak about him from the left. However, his support of limiting CO2 emissions leaves me cold and in the dark. This position is not supported by any real science and certainly not by any kind of economic model that might possibly work for the citizens of this country.

40 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:59:33pm

re: #31 JCM

Yep, fight it state by state.

Not that it will matter.

Congress has decided the BCS needs an investigation.

Fucked-up priorities.

41 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:59:33pm

re: #27 MandyManners

Doesn't it utlimately boil down to the local school districts?

Yes. It is a decision that should be made only at the local level, or even further down at the level of each school.

42 Kragar  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:59:50pm

re: #29 Kosh's Shadow

You mean CE or BCE?
(for those non-Christian lizards)
(AD = "anno domini" = "in the year of our Lord", which is incorrect for non-Christians. To me, it is 5769)
/just being picky before I leave work

Technically, and this will all be straightened out eventually, we are in the year 35 KR (Kragar Reckoning), everything earlier is BKR.

It will be so much easier once I've ascended to my proper place.

/

43 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:00:13pm

re: #33 FurryOldGuyJeans

re: #34 MandyManners

Eeep! I gots there before Mandy!

Your mind might be great, Mandy, but mine is definitely perverted. ;)

44 JCM  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:00:19pm

re: #35 anotherindyfilmguy

I'd rather they spent the next three years wrangling over that than spending our grandchildren into bankruptcy...

There's an idea distract them!

In that case we should entice them into and in depth investigation with fact finding into the pr0n industry.

The country demands to know are those fake or natural!

45 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:00:31pm

Starting in 2010 & into 2012, I would like the Republicans to run on the economy an the War on Terror, or whatever is fashionable to call it.
Unlike the McCain Campaign the Republicans actually should run against Obama. The rallying cry should be individual liberty.

46 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:00:43pm

re: #37 JCM

Depends, curricula is often set by the State with districts left to how to met the requirement.

Democracy can be messy.

47 quickjustice  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:00:51pm

You mean the GOP finally has become the party of sex and drugs and rock 'n roll? ;-)

48 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:00:58pm

re: #16 goddessoftheclassroom

Goddess, I think you're mistaken on that. Try this link...
[Link: corner.nationalreview.com...]

(As last line says, The 2008 Republican Platform calls for a ban on all embryonic stem-cell research, public or private. )

49 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:01:04pm

re: #42 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Technically, and this will all be straightened out eventually, we are in the year 35 KR (Kragar Reckoning), everything earlier is BKR.

It will be so much easier once I've ascended to my proper place.

/

Or we're in the year 1 of the One.
That disgusts me; I'd prefer your system.

50 baier  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:01:22pm

Huzzah! Huzzah!
The silver lining to the GOP meltdown it's that our opinions count now. Toss the nuts out! Why should we have to create a third party? Let the wackos wander the wilderness.

51 Digital Display  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:01:22pm

re: #42 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Technically, and this will all be straightened out eventually, we are in the year 35 KR (Kragar Reckoning), everything earlier is BKR.

It will be so much easier once I've ascended to my proper place.

/

Dang..I didn't know you were Buddha..How is the Banyan tree thing working out?
/ :)

52 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:01:39pm

re: #41 Soona'

Yes. It is a decision that should be made only at the local level, or even further down at the level of each school.

Well, there is the issue of standardized testing.

53 Kragar  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:01:52pm

re: #49 Kosh's Shadow

Or we're in the year 1 of the One.
That disgusts me; I'd prefer your system.

Pretenders will be dealt with properly at the proper time.

54 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:01:55pm

re: #39 UncleRancher

Newt is one of the few pro-science republicans out there. He was the one to start the first science caucus in the House. If Newt is saying there is something to this, perhaps we should pause and consider what he's saying. He sure as hell isn't saying it to pander.

55 Edgesitter  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:02:36pm

Damn good explanation of where I am at.

56 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:02:42pm

re: #44 JCM

There's an idea distract them!

In that case we should entice them into and in depth investigation with fact finding into the pr0n industry.

The country demands to know are those fake or natural!

They'll never come back to their districts!

57 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:02:44pm

What biological research that doesn't involve the destruction of human embryos has been blocked by any conservative?
And isn't the research that does merit a discussion?
I'd agree with him, except that abortion is so very much more important than even the rapid transformation of America to socialism to me. It is disgusting that it is allowed, and a party that doesn't take a firm stand against it will lose my respect.
Also, heterosexual marriage is the best way of producing and enculturating healthy new people, and should absolutely be prized above other unions. Of course, in a sane federalist society, that is a state issue, and it would be nice if it stayed that way. Ditto the other "sex" issues he mentions, but they are by and large valid issues for states to address, inasmuch as they intersect valid functions of government.
Likewise ID; a politicians view on evolution is irrelevant nationally; it matters to states, and governers and law-makers should let the scientific evidence that has passed the test of time alone be taught.

But if Americans are writing off the republicans because a couple side issues are being brought up when they should be left to states, when the current administration is trying to annex so much of the entire economy which government should have no role in, to be arbiters of economic success and failure, that just blind.

58 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:02:50pm

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. needs to put the heaviest possible pressure on Pakistani allies to join U.S. efforts to counter Taliban forces, the Obama administration's point man for the region said Tuesday.
Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told a congressional committee Tuesday that Pakistan's survival as a moderate, democratic state is critical to U.S. national security.

[Link: www.breitbart.com...]

Then maybe it was a mistake for all you Liberal assholes to chase Musharaff out of Office?

59 JCM  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:03:23pm

re: #46 MandyManners

Democracy can be messy.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.
Churchill.

60 Kragar  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:03:30pm

re: #51 HoosierHoops

Dang..I didn't know you were Buddha..How is the Banyan tree thing working out?
/ :)

Banyan was a bitch, kept loosing the server keys

61 anotherindyfilmguy  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:04:17pm

IMO it comes down to this:
When we let religious values about certain topics override everything then it is an open window for the other side to exploit. Not voting because McCain wasn't "XYZ" enough has landed us Obama. Voting as a one issue voter, or staying home, means we end up with the worst of two evils instead of the lesser of two evils...

God knows I'm for the lesser of the two evils, or at least some of the ones not yet tried and proven "really bad" like most -isms...

62 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:04:27pm

re: #54 Sharmuta

Newt is one of the few pro-science republicans out there. He was the one to start the first science caucus in the House. If Newt is saying there is something to this, perhaps we should pause and consider what he's saying. He sure as hell isn't saying it to pander.

We sure as hell ain't gonna outpray the bastards.

63 JCM  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:04:39pm

re: #56 MandyManners

They'll never come back to their districts!

Operation Pr0n would be a resounding success, to busy to run for reelection!

64 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:04:41pm

re: #58 Nevergiveup

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. needs to put the heaviest possible pressure on Pakistani allies to join U.S. efforts to counter Taliban forces, the Obama administration's point man for the region said Tuesday.
Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told a congressional committee Tuesday that Pakistan's survival as a moderate, democratic state is critical to U.S. national security.

[Link: www.breitbart.com...]

Then maybe it was a mistake for all you Liberal assholes to chase Musharaff out of Office?

Same thing that they did to the Shah. That didn't turn out well.

65 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:04:47pm

Actually, the most recent Pew Research Center poll showed that the support for abortion is going down.
It used to be that 54% wanted abortion legal in all or in most cases. That has gone done to 46%. It used to be that 41% wanted abortion illegal in all or most cases. That has gone up to 44%.

66 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:04:56pm

re: #39 UncleRancher

Generally, Newt Gingrich is right on the mark. Evidence lies in the intense hatred-speak about him from the left. However, his support of limiting CO2 emissions leaves me cold and in the dark. This position is not supported by any real science and certainly not by any kind of economic model that might possibly work for the citizens of this country.

That's one of the biggest reasons I could never vote for Newt. In order to do what he wants on the enviroment, he would have to implement basically the same draconian measures that team-zero is trying to do.

67 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:05:03pm

re: #59 JCM

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.
Churchill.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

In the original

68 Digital Display  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:05:52pm

re: #60 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Banyan was a bitch, kept loosing the server keys

Whoa..How many people here understand Banyan Vines technology from the old days? Nice come back Kafir!

69 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:06:08pm

Religion and sex are very personal matters to people- we don't want the government involved in these areas. It's a loosing strategy.

Meanwhile- we have an economy in need of help, government spending out of control, a need for energy independence, a war on terror, and a border issue. Surely these topics concern Americans more, and are actually where the government should be involved. Perhaps the republicans could try running on these issues, and stay out of the personal matters.

It's so crazy- it just might work!

70 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:06:19pm

re: #58 Nevergiveup

Then maybe it was a mistake for all you Liberal assholes to chase Musharaff out of Office?

Dems never look past the appeasement of the Leftoid crazies.

71 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:06:59pm

re: #65 Simply Me

Actually, the most recent Pew Research Center poll showed that the support for abortion is going down.
It used to be that 54% wanted abortion legal in all or in most cases. That has gone done to 46%. It used to be that 41% wanted abortion illegal in all or most cases. That has gone up to 44%.

What's your point though? This isn't an issue that is decided by popular politics (in theory). It is a constitutional issue.

72 baier  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:07:23pm

re: #65 Simply Me

Actually, the most recent Pew Research Center poll showed that the support for abortion is going down.
It used to be that 54% wanted abortion legal in all or in most cases. That has gone done to 46%. It used to be that 41% wanted abortion illegal in all or most cases. That has gone up to 44%.

If support for abortion is 0% is still must remain legal. It is not a matter of public opinion but of constitutionality. I would never vote for anyone who expresses the desire to turn over roe v wade.

73 eon  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:07:45pm

My version of "republican" philosophy is sort of like this;

1. I don't care what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. I don't even care if there are three or more, as long as I don't have to referee.

2. In return, I ask that said adults stay out of my library and my gun cabinet. Ditto for all of their friends.

3. As for abortion, my opinion is the same as my opinion on capital punishment, and was delivered by Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter (1973); You do it, and then you live with it.

4. If someone wants to "stop global warming", but is simultaneously opposed to nuclear and/or hydroelectric power, they should be ignored because they are too stupid to have an opinion worth paying attention to. Pandering to such accomplishes nothing, and just gets you tarred with being an idiot by association.

5. If it is not in the Constitution, it is not a proper role for government. Period. (Please note that, like it or not, assistance to the underprivileged is in there, in spirit; see "promote the general welfare".)

6. Anything else is open to debate, as long as it does not violate rules 1 through 5.

Oddly enough, many people are surprised to learn that I'm a Republican. Maybe because the ones they've met before didn't understand the concept.

cheers

eon

74 Kragar  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:07:51pm

re: #68 HoosierHoops

Whoa..How many people here understand Banyan Vines technology from the old days? Nice come back Kafir!

And thats why I'm the real thing and the One is a pretender.

75 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:08:22pm

And this is the exact sort of rhetoric that Rush has been railing against the last few days. He wouldn't agree with this essay for all the tea in China.

That's why I see the GOP crashing and burning. I can barely think of one "popular" Republican who thinks like the writer of this essay.

The majority of the party is not listening to this sort of advice, they consider it some sort of plot to destroy the GOP.

I don't see how we are going to buck the trend?

76 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:08:36pm

re: #63 JCM

Operation Pr0n would be a resounding success, to busy to run for reelection!

Will there be a "TaTa Committee"?

77 DaddyG  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:08:40pm

Bravo! As a deeply religious fellow I applaud going back to the fundamentals. This includes keeping both parties out of my bedroom, my place of worship, my gun locker and a few other bastions of liberty. The party than can demonstrably trust me to govern myself (and this applies to communities and businesses) has my support.

78 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:08:53pm

re: #72 baier

If support for abortion is 0% is still must remain legal. It is not a matter of public opinion but of constitutionality. I would never vote for anyone who expresses the desire to turn over roe v wade.

Hogwash. Even many liberal legal scholars admit RvW is a farce of constitutional law.
Why exactly "must" it remain legal?

79 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:08:57pm

Dear GOP-

The fiscal conservatives of this party are begging you, please!, to get back to Goldwater conservatism.

Sincerely, Sharmuta

80 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:08:57pm

re: #72 baier

If support for abortion is 0% is still must remain legal. It is not a matter of public opinion but of constitutionality. I would never vote for anyone who expresses the desire to turn over roe v wade.

With thinking like that slavery would still be practiced here in the US.

81 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:09:19pm

re: #49 Kosh's Shadow

Or we're in the year 1 of the One.
That disgusts me; I'd prefer your system.

Whichever new system you wind up with, please begin the count with year zero - not one. The absence of a zero year in the current timeline, as it transitions from 1 AD to 1 BC, causes all kinds of mathematical headaches.

82 UncleRancher  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:09:54pm

re: #54 Sharmuta

Newt is one of the few pro-science republicans out there. He was the one to start the first science caucus in the House. If Newt is saying there is something to this, perhaps we should pause and consider what he's saying. He sure as hell isn't saying it to pander.

Yes, I've already done that. I don't know if Newt has changed his position by this time, but at the time he was just flat wrong. Cap and trade will be a disaster for this country if it passes. Newt may be pro-science and that's a good thing but he was way out of his depth on this one. I like the guy and I would vote for him in a heartbeat because he is smart and he is teachable.

83 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:10:18pm

re: #48 ShanghaiEd

Goddess, I think you're mistaken on that. Try this link...
[Link: corner.nationalreview.com...]

(As last line says, The 2008 Republican Platform calls for a ban on all embryonic stem-cell research, public or private. )

Thank you for the link. I did not realize that was part of the 2008 platform.
I still think it's going to far to say that the Republican Party is antiscience, though.

84 baier  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:10:20pm

re: #78 nikis-knight

Hogwash. Even many liberal legal scholars admit RvW is a farce of constitutional law.
Why exactly "must" it remain legal?

Because women get raped and should have to carry to term the child of their attacker, for one.

85 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:10:50pm

re: #79 Sharmuta

Dear GOP-

The fiscal conservatives of this party are begging you, please!, to get back to Goldwater conservatism.

Sincerely, Sharmuta

From: GOP Party Elites
To: Sharmuta
CC: All other Fiscal Conservatives

Up Yours! We know what is best for you.

86 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:10:57pm

re: #80 FurryOldGuyJeans

Wrong. Owning a slave was not a constitutional right.

If it were, Lincoln couldn't have executed the Emancipation Proclamation.

87 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:11:16pm

re: #71 pjaicomo

What's your point though? This isn't an issue that is decided by popular politics (in theory). It is a constitutional issue.

Whatever on thinks of the issue Roe v Wade is bad law, at least the way that the court got there.
There is no privacy right in the costitution that would mandate a Federal protection of abortion rights. The court just cobbled together what to them was a desireable decision.
It should be left to the states.

88 JCM  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:11:33pm

re: #76 MandyManners

Will there be a "TaTa Committee"?

Bwarney Fwank requests a different committee assignment.

89 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:12:21pm

re: #88 JCM

Bwarney Fwank requests a different committee assignment.

Tea-Bag Sub-Committee?

90 KingKenrod  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:12:24pm

re: #66 Soona'

That's one of the biggest reasons I could never vote for Newt. In order to do what he wants on the enviroment, he would have to implement basically the same draconian measures that team-zero is trying to do.

Newt's position is entirely sensible. We need to move away from fossil fuels for a variety of reasons. He doesn't believe in any draconian measures. See here:

[Link: newt.org...]

91 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:12:25pm

re: #84 baier

Because women get raped and should have to carry to term the child of their attacker, for one.

Therefore it should be legal in all cases? As current law states? Absurd.
I'm willing to be practical, and go bit by bit where there is support.
But, as far as justice goes, it is worse to kill someone for a crime that they didn't commit than to prevent a women to endure a pregnancy she doesn't want.

92 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:12:36pm

re: #87 opnion

Whatever on thinks of the issue Roe v Wade is bad law, at least the way that the court got there.
There is no privacy right in the costitution that would mandate a Federal protection of abortion rights. The court just cobbled together what to them was a desireable decision.
It should be left to the states.

I mean, you can think that, but the people who get to make the decisions disagree.

93 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:12:43pm

re: #54 Sharmuta

Newt is one of the few pro-science republicans out there. He was the one to start the first science caucus in the House. If Newt is saying there is something to this, perhaps we should pause and consider what he's saying. He sure as hell isn't saying it to pander.

Newt makes me a tad leery right now because by all reports he has jumped on the government intervention all all costs the debate is over global warming crowd bandwagon.

94 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:12:44pm

re: #16 goddessoftheclassroom

By "biological research," does he mean embryonic stem cell research? I assume he does, as that's the only biological research I'm aware of that conservatives do not want the federal government to fund--but I do not recall any Republicans calling for the banning of private funding or research.

I do not agree that this position makes Republicans "antiscience."

From a leftie's prospective, throwing out excessive embryos is less pro life then using them to possibly save lives. With countries around the world supporting research, it does seem anti science to me. If we were creating embryo's just to destroy them, I could see your point.

95 quickjustice  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:13:04pm

Democrats beat Republicans black and blue every time there's a "sex scandal" in the GOP, while engaging in behavior that caused G-d to unleash fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Remember GOP Senator Bob Packwood, banished for groping his female staffers, while Bill Clinton scooted around doing far worse scot-free? Who was the NOW person who offered to do Clinton herself if he'd only keep abortion legal?

I don't have a problem with "family values" based politics as long as it's focused primarily on the local and state levels. Anti-science agendas are a non-starter. We can keep a broad coalition together, and build on it, but it must begin delivering for the American people. That means government that is smaller, and works smarter. I like Charles Murray's proposal to replace social welfare bureaucracies with cash payments. That restores transparency to government, and makes it easier to adjust payments to fit budgets.

And we must begin fighting for core civic values that Obama threatens. Our kids too often aren't getting them in the schools. Whole generations have been poisoned by bad public education. Young people supported Obama in overwhelming numbers. Someone never educated them about Fascism and Marxism.

96 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:13:08pm

re: #91 nikis-knight

Therefore it should be legal in all cases? As current law states? Absurd.
I'm willing to be practical, and go bit by bit where there is support.
But, as far as justice goes, it is worse to kill someone for a crime that they didn't commit than to prevent a women to endure a pregnancy she doesn't want.

It's not legal in all cases, and that is plain in the language of PP v. Casey.

97 anotherindyfilmguy  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:13:20pm

On the relative plus side of things people are getting a look at the "what if the left ran the country" and many on the left are not liking it... the pendulum will swing back the next two elections barring martial law or acorn being the sole holder of election offices across the land... daily stuff like the O and Biden or the election travesty of Franken/Coleman will keep the stench in peoples noses until they force themselves to vote for "change from change"...

98 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:13:23pm

re: #78 nikis-knight

Hogwash. Even many liberal legal scholars admit RvW is a farce of constitutional law.
Why exactly "must" it remain legal?



You're right. Even legal types that support the decision admit that Roe is bad law.

99 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:13:30pm

re: #86 pjaicomo

Wrong. Owning a slave was not a constitutional right.

If it were, Lincoln couldn't have executed the Emancipation Proclamation.

You need a remedial history lesson is all I have to say to you.

100 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:13:35pm

re: #85 FurryOldGuyJeans

As God as my witness- the fiscal conservatives will take back this party.

101 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:13:39pm

re: #83 goddessoftheclassroom

Thank you for the link. I did not realize that was part of the 2008 platform.
I still think it's going to far to say that the Republican Party is antiscience, though.

Or this.

MWAH!

102 FrogMarch  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:13:52pm

Great: but for good measure:

“Because the ruling Democrats have tilted too far left, their allies are out on a mission of distraction, trying to prove that everyone else is too far to the right.”

[Link: pajamasmedia.com...]

103 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:13:58pm

re: #72 baier

If support for abortion is 0% is still must remain legal. It is not a matter of public opinion but of constitutionality. I would never vote for anyone who expresses the desire to turn over roe v wade.

Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and the question of abortion should be given back to the states where it belongs.

104 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:14:03pm

re: #99 FurryOldGuyJeans

Right back at ya, pal.

105 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:14:18pm

re: #92 pjaicomo

I mean, you can think that, but the people who get to make the decisions disagree.

And they can disagree, but that doesn't make them right. If your position is really that whatever the court says is true regardless of what the words of the document read, I question what exactly kind of government we have.

106 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:14:35pm

re: #95 quickjustice

Our kids too often aren't getting them in the schools. Whole generations have been poisoned by bad public education. Young people supported Obama in overwhelming numbers. Someone never educated them about Fascism and Marxism.

Perhaps that's a parent's duty.

107 Russkilitlover  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:14:48pm

Someone had to say it. Now here's hoping someone in the Republican Party is reading and comprehending it.

108 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:14:53pm

re: #103 Soona'

Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and the question of abortion should be given back to the states where it belongs.

The states do have the power . . . after viability.

109 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:15:03pm

re: #101 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Or this.

MWAH!

Give that dog some holy water.

110 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:15:14pm

re: #105 nikis-knight

And they can disagree, but that doesn't make them right. If your position is really that whatever the court says is true regardless of what the words of the document read, I question what exactly kind of government we have.

No, I am just saying, you put it like its so plain and obvious.

111 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:15:32pm

re: #100 Sharmuta

As God as my witness- the fiscal conservatives will take back this party.

At this moment and point in time I am a bit less confident of such happenings than you, Sharm.

112 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:15:39pm

re: #97 anotherindyfilmguy

On the relative plus side of things people are getting a look at the "what if the left ran the country" and many on the left are not liking it... the pendulum will swing back the next two elections barring martial law or acorn being the sole holder of election offices across the land... daily stuff like the O and Biden or the election travesty of Franken/Coleman will keep the stench in peoples noses until they force themselves to vote for "change from change"...

Many on the left don't like it because they feel the administration is not LEFT enough.

That's not good.

113 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:15:46pm

re: #92 pjaicomo

I mean, you can think that, but the people who get to make the decisions disagree.

I'm not following you. Are you saying that because the Supreme Court handed down a decision that by definition it has to be correct?

114 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:15:47pm

re: #107 Russkilitlover

Someone had to say it. Now here's hoping someone in the Republican Party is reading and comprehending it.

It's not just the party- it's us. We have to make sure we get involved and a fiscal conservative wins the nomination.

115 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:16:04pm

re: #111 FurryOldGuyJeans

At this moment and point in time I am a bit less confident of such happenings than you, Sharm.

Agreed. I think this could be the end. The next decade . . .

116 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:16:22pm

re: #113 opnion

I'm not following you. Are you saying that because the Supreme Court handed down a decision that by definition it has to be correct?

See 110.

117 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:16:44pm

re: #96 pjaicomo

It's not legal in all cases, and that is plain in the language of PP v. Casey.

A woman can get an abortion by saying she is suffering mental distress even up to the very last months of gestation.
Anyway, you aren't really saying that all abortions performed in this country are due to rape, are you? Because that was the context the prior poster was arguing for it.

118 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:16:48pm

re: #87 opnion

Whatever on thinks of the issue Roe v Wade is bad law, at least the way that the court got there.
There is no privacy right in the costitution that would mandate a Federal protection of abortion rights. The court just cobbled together what to them was a desireable decision.
It should be left to the states.

Invoking states rights on such a universal issue is seen by many as a copout and a recipe for forum shopping.

119 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:16:54pm

re: #109 DEZes

Give that dog some holy water.

(when I first saw that, searching for ammo, I wished t' hell it was a CAT!)

120 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:17:37pm

re: #117 nikis-knight

A woman can get an abortion by saying she is suffering mental distress even up to the very last months of gestation.
Anyway, you aren't really saying that all abortions performed in this country are due to rape, are you? Because that was the context the prior poster was arguing for it.

What do you think? Yeah, I think all abortions are the result of rape. /sarc

121 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:18:08pm

re: #113 opnion

I'm not following you. Are you saying that because the Supreme Court handed down a decision that by definition it has to be correct?

Yet he rejected out of hand prior SCOTUS rulings that had confirmed slavery was effectively legal here.

122 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:18:37pm

re: #106 MandyManners

Perhaps that's a parent's duty.

Problem is, half the parents in this country blindly follow Marxism.

123 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:18:47pm
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom........." - Ben Franklin

I think that much of the recrimination and wrangling going on today is because many conservatives think that we have lost the virtue that Franklin speaks of. And they are probably correct. Where they fail, I believe, is in thinking that virtue can be regained through government action. It cannot and if anything, the harder they push to regain it the less likely they are to win.
Virtue can only be regained at the grassroots level, by each individual living his life in a virtuous manner and hopefully influencing others, through personal example to do the same. That is the only way and that takes a long time.
In the meantime, the republic is being threatened with irreversible damage and the only way to avert it is to win. And to win, conservatives must define and positively promote their essential fundamental beliefs. Limited, fiscally responsible government with a strong focus on defense and above all the exaltation of the individual and his liberty over the collective. This must be done without alienating the majority because of an overemphasis on the moral issues.
Those will come later. But first, we must win.

124 eon  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:18:53pm

re: #86 pjaicomo

Wrong. Owning a slave was not a constitutional right.

If it were, Lincoln couldn't have executed the Emancipation Proclamation.

See Article I, Section 2, and Article IV, Section 2. Both rendered moot by the 13th Amendment.

cheers

eon

125 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:19:11pm

re: #94 avanti

From a leftie's prospective, throwing out excessive embryos is less pro life then using them to possibly save lives. With countries around the world supporting research, it does seem anti science to me. If we were creating embryo's just to destroy them, I could see your point.


See, I very much am sympathetic to this arguement, but wonder what kind of incentives we would be setting up. The wisest course would be to persue the less shady research harder & quicker. I think Bush had a good compromise of only funding by gov't existing cell lines.

126 FrogMarch  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:19:18pm
Our obsession with creationism and blocking biological research has earned us the reputation of being an anti-science party, which is a burden our adversaries are delighted to exploit — notwithstanding their Luddite opposition to nuclear energy, oil exploration, aerospace technology, etc. Aside from that, religious issues should not concern the national government — especially when we have so many vital matters — our traditional principles — that must be addressed before the republic is lost forever.

indeed.

127 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:19:23pm

re: #119 pre-Boomer Marine brat

(when I first saw that, searching for ammo, I wished t' hell it was a CAT!)

Maybe a cat possessed it. or clawed its balls.

128 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:19:27pm

Curmudgeon's letter is dead-bang on target.

129 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:19:29pm

re: #118 Spare O'Lake

Invoking states rights on such a universal issue is seen by many as a copout and a recipe for forum shopping.

it can be viewed that way, but the issue remains that there is nothing in the Constitution that supports the Courts decision on Roe.

130 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:19:42pm

re: #121 FurryOldGuyJeans

Yet he rejected out of hand prior SCOTUS rulings that had confirmed slavery was effectively legal here.

Wrong again my friend. I reject that owning a slave was a constitutional right. It wasn't. The property right in people as chattel was executively abrogated. The constitution gives a right to own property, but the political branches can determine what property is protected.

131 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:20:23pm

re: #124 eon

See Article I, Section 2, and Article IV, Section 2. Both rendered moot by the 13th Amendment.

cheers

eon

And the irony of his usage of the Emancipation Proclamation is that the document had NO legal authority within those states still within the Union, only those states that had rebelled.

132 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:20:25pm

re: #124 eon

See Article I, Section 2, and Article IV, Section 2. Both rendered moot by the 13th Amendment.

cheers

eon

Right, and that was an AMENDMENT to the constitution, not the Court just changing its mind.

133 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:20:41pm

re: #127 DEZes

Maybe a cat possessed it. or clawed its balls.

GotC hasn't responded ... yet.
Maybe I should be VERY worried!

134 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:20:53pm

The Curmudgeon wrote:

When we say “sex,” we mean topics like abstinence, promiscuity, homosexuality, pre-marital relations, contraception, sodomy, nudity, pornography, masturbation, same-sex marriage, sex education, abortion, and morning-after pills. Does that list sound familiar? It should, because those are the issues that too often dominate your campaigns.


This seems like an exageration. Have pe-marital relations, contraception and masturbation been mentioned in the party platform?

I think supporting traditional marriage and opposition to abortion are substantive issues. Lumping them in with masturbation seems like a rhetorical trick to trivialize them.

135 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:21:29pm

re: #133 pre-Boomer Marine brat

GotC hasn't responded ... yet.
Maybe I should be VERY worried!

I would be, she is digging up ammo.

136 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:21:33pm

re: #122 DEZes

Problem is, half the parents in this country blindly follow Marxism.

I don't think that half of the parents in this nation are Marxists.

137 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:21:45pm

re: #106 MandyManners

Perhaps that's a parent's duty.


Ensuring your children know what they need to know is of course a parents duty, but if basic history of the recent past isn't being taught, or worse, is being taught wrong, then what's the point of the whole enterprise, other than "free" day-care?

138 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:21:47pm

re: #130 pjaicomo

Wrong again my friend. I reject that owning a slave was a constitutional right. It wasn't. The property right in people as chattel was executively abrogated. The constitution gives a right to own property, but the political branches can determine what property is protected.

I am not your friend if you want to continue to play loose with facts and history.

139 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:22:11pm

re: #125 nikis-knight

See, I very much am sympathetic to this arguement, but wonder what kind of incentives we would be setting up. The wisest course would be to persue the less shady research harder & quicker. I think Bush had a good compromise of only funding by gov't existing cell lines.

I might have met you in the middle with that Bush compromise, but there were not enough uncontaminated embryo's, even though we were throwing them away daily. I just don't follow the logic.

140 JCM  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:22:33pm

re: #79 Sharmuta

Dear GOP-

The fiscal conservatives of this party are begging you, please!, to get back to Goldwater conservatism.

Sincerely, Sharmuta

27,175,754 updings for you!

141 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:22:42pm

re: #79 Sharmuta

Dear GOP-

The fiscal conservatives of this party are begging you, please!, to get back to Goldwater conservatism.

Sincerely, Sharmuta

I call it Constitutional conservatism. That's what I support. Everyone can have their arguments over the economy, science, ID, abortion. A All I want is our government to abide by the rules set down by our Founding Fathers.

142 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:22:49pm

re: #135 DEZes

I would be, she is digging up ammo.

Or a dog-sized grave

143 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:22:51pm

re: #121 FurryOldGuyJeans

Yet he rejected out of hand prior SCOTUS rulings that had confirmed slavery was effectively legal here.

There is nothing infallible about the Supreme Court.

144 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:23:00pm

re: #138 FurryOldGuyJeans

I am not your friend if you want to continue to play loose with facts and history.

/friendship

145 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:23:11pm

re: #101 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Or this.

MWAH!

MWAH!

146 callahan23  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:23:27pm

re: #127 DEZes

Maybe a cat possessed it. or clawed its balls.

Or possessed it in this way .... Mwuhahaaa

147 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:23:27pm

re: #141 Soona'

I call it Constitutional conservatism. That's what I support. Everyone can have their arguments over the economy, science, ID, abortion. A All I want is our government to abide by the rules set down by our Founding Fathers.

Have you read The Conscience of a Conservative?

148 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:23:39pm

re: #136 MandyManners

I don't think that half of the parents in this nation are Marxists.

Not what I mean at all, They have no clue what they are.
But we have a marxist in the white house because people had no clue, but its CHANGE.

149 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:23:50pm

re: #143 opnion

There is nothing infallible about the Supreme Court.

Never said there was, but it is the only system we have.

150 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:24:03pm

re: #137 nikis-knight

Ensuring your children know what they need to know is of course a parents duty, but if basic history of the recent past isn't being taught, or worse, is being taught wrong, then what's the point of the whole enterprise, other than "free" day-care?

It's not free. Our money pays for it.

151 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:24:10pm

re: #129 opnion

it can be viewed that way, but the issue remains that there is nothing in the Constitution that supports the Courts decision on Roe.

That is not the issue.
And besides, kindly git all yer gubmint's paws off my daughter's body.

152 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:24:20pm

re: #148 DEZes

Not what I mean at all, They have no clue what they are.
But we have a marxist in the white house because people had no clue, but its CHANGE.

We don't have a Marxist in the White House.

153 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:24:52pm

re: #134 Simply Me

The Curmudgeon wrote:


This seems like an exageration. Have pe-marital relations, contraception and masturbation been mentioned in the party platform?

I think supporting traditional marriage and opposition to abortion are substantive issues. Lumping them in with masturbation seems like a rhetorical trick to trivialize them.

Contraception is often mentioned by many GOP members in the form of teaching abstinence only birth control methods. Pre-martial relations are also mentioned from time to time and occasional "slip out" such as Demint's recent comments regarding unwed pregnant teachers.

154 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:25:29pm

re: #152 Walter L. Newton

We don't have a Marxist in the White House.

Your opinion of him?

155 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:25:45pm

re: #149 FurryOldGuyJeans

Never said there was, but it is the only system we have.

No, that comment was not directed at you. I was agreeing with your point that the Court once upheld slavery & noone would call that a good decision.

156 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:25:56pm

re: #152 Walter L. Newton

So Walter, I see you're still vertical, how did your tests go ?

157 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:26:09pm

re: #149 FurryOldGuyJeans

Never said there was, but it is the only system we have.


Very true, which is why knowing how the president thinks on the issue, and congresscritters who will confrim or not his choices to the court, is so important. Precedent matters, but it is not wrong to reverse it if you get someone who can read the thing on the court.

158 mike(in)savage  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:26:15pm

"...there is absolutely no reason to discuss such matters as part of our party’s policies. The Constitution doesn’t give the federal government any authority over those issues. If they need to be addressed, it should be done only at the state level."

Even if you agree with this premise, there's a disconnect here.

Let me see if I've got this straight: a)Republicans are to support limited government and preserving the Constitution. b)They are not to worry about "sex stuff". c)The current law of the land vis-a-vis abortion is at odds with the Republican belief in "A". d) Since the topic involved is "sex stuff", we're just supposed to forget about it?

I mentioned once before - if I tell you I'm opposed to federal funding of abortion, does that make me an upstanding believer in limited government...or a religious fanatic?

(Please note I am not advocating for any position other than clarity)

159 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:26:41pm

re: #145 goddessoftheclassroom

MWAH!

ROFLM*O!

CAUGHT!

160 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:27:07pm

re: #150 MandyManners

It's not free. Our money pays for it.


hence the quotes.

161 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:27:10pm

re: #154 DEZes

Your opinion of him?

A Democrat with leanings to a soft socialism, similar to the socialism of England and other European countries. I haven't heard anyone calling Brown or Merkel a Marxist.

162 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:27:11pm

re: #152 Walter L. Newton

We don't have a Marxist in the White House.

Exactly how would you classify the current POTUS?

This is not meant as snark or sarcasm, but an honest question.

163 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:27:16pm

re: #148 DEZes

Not what I mean at all, They have no clue what they are.
But we have a marxist in the white house because people had no clue, but its CHANGE.

They're busy working to support their families and pay taxes. And many know more about Lost or American Idol than they do about their own city councils, county board of supervisors, state government, et cet..

164 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:27:32pm

re: #151 Spare O'Lake

That is not the issue.
And besides, kindly git all yer gubmint's paws off my daughter's body.


I am not even taking a position, I am just saying that the court worked backward on Roe. They knew where they wanted to go & just started there.

165 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:27:56pm

Clan bicker over Ted Kennedy’s Senate Seat

[Link: www.bostonherald.com...]

Can you spell "Dignified"? Apparently the Kenndy's can't.

166 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:28:21pm

re: #118 Spare O'Lake

Invoking states rights on such a universal issue is seen by many as a copout and a recipe for forum shopping.

R v W should be overturned and the question given back to the states where it belongs.

167 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:28:27pm

re: #156 avanti

So Walter, I see you're still vertical, how did your tests go ?

I don't know, doctor will tell me the results in a few weeks. It was routine, just wanting to make sure that there is nothing hiding and waiting to kill me or something.

I suspect if the tech saw something really nasty, that they would have told me right away.

168 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:28:28pm

re: #155 opnion

No, that comment was not directed at you. I was agreeing with your point that the Court once upheld slavery & noone would call that a good decision.

I still "took it" as directed at me, in a friendly manner, so I chose to answer. :)

169 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:28:31pm

re: #161 Walter L. Newton

A Democrat with leanings to a soft socialism, similar to the socialism of England and other European countries. I haven't heard anyone calling Brown or Merkel a Marxist.

But Brown is a dope for sure.

170 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:28:53pm

re: #152 Walter L. Newton

We don't have a Marxist in the White House.

Fine, Call him whatever you want. He is hell bent on nationalizing major portions of our industry and infrastructure. He wants to 'spread the wealth'. He thinks everything America has done before him is something to be ashamed of. He thinks he and his apparatchiks know better how to manage America's economy than the rest of us.
If it walks like a duck and it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, I guess it's a banana.
/

171 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:28:55pm

re: #162 FurryOldGuyJeans

re: #161 Walter L. Newton

172 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:29:27pm

re: #160 nikis-knight

hence the quotes.

I can be dense at times.

173 quickjustice  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:29:34pm

re: #86 pjaicomo

You should read up on Justice Taney's dreadful Dredd Scott decision. Before the Civil War, owning slaves was a property right, because Justice Taney decreed slaves to be property.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation relied upon military authority to order the U.S. military to seize contraband (slaves) within the states in rebellion. It didn't apply to slave states like Maryland that hadn't seceded. The Proclamation had two strategic goals: to destroy the slave economy in the Confederacy, and to enlist the freed slaves in the Union Army, adding to the north's numerical advantage.

174 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:29:36pm

re: #170 LGoPs

Fine, Call him whatever you want. He is hell bent on nationalizing major portions of our industry and infrastructure. He wants to 'spread the wealth'. He thinks everything America has done before him is something to be ashamed of. He thinks he and his apparatchiks know better how to manage America's economy than the rest of us.
If it walks like a duck and it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, I guess it's a banana.
/

re: #161 Walter L. Newton

175 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:29:41pm

re: #168 FurryOldGuyJeans

I still "took it" as directed at me, in a friendly manner, so I chose to answer. :)

Trust me, my friend it was an inartful agreement.

176 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:29:50pm

re: #169 Nevergiveup

But Brown is a dope for sure.

There you go stating the obvious again.

177 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:30:30pm

re: #171 Walter L. Newton

re: #161 Walter L. Newton

Your answer crossed my question in their travels in the interwebs. :)

178 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:31:11pm

re: #158 mike(in)savage

Maybe you missed this part, since you didn't bold it:

If they need to be addressed, it should be done only at the state level.

Most pro-choicers (and maybe pro-lifers) don't realize that if Roe was overturned, abortion wouldn't be illegal, it would revert back to the 50 states to decide for themselves. We can agree it's not the federal government's role, while moving on to other topics that will better help us win back seats in Congress and take back the White House.

179 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:31:16pm

re: #167 Walter L. Newton

I don't know, doctor will tell me the results in a few weeks. It was routine, just wanting to make sure that there is nothing hiding and waiting to kill me or something.

I suspect if the tech saw something really nasty, that they would have told me right away.

Yep, if they can't see something with a quick glance, it's unlikely you have a serious issue, great news.

180 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:31:44pm

re: #161 Walter L. Newton

A Democrat with leanings to a soft socialism, similar to the socialism of England and other European countries. I haven't heard anyone calling Brown or Merkel a Marxist.

Fair enough, whats the difference between Marxism and socialism in your opinion?

181 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:31:49pm

re: #175 opnion

Trust me, my friend it was an inartful agreement.

I didn't see it as inartful at all.

182 eon  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:32:01pm

re: #148 DEZes

Not what I mean at all, They have no clue what they are.
But we have a marxist in the white house because people had no clue, but its CHANGE.

Actually, I'm pretty sure The One falls into the same category. He exhibits more egotism, arrogance, and vacuousness than any familiarity with Marxism other than a few slogans that I suspect he thinks just sound "cool".

He's less a Leninist than a poseur. If he were a Republican, he'd be a creationist just because the majority aren't. To him, it's all about being farther out "on the edge" than anyone else- even if he isn't sure what he's on the edge of. So he can strike a dramatic pose, and thus avoid actually having to think.

(If Mattel made an Obama Ken doll, it would have to say, "Being President is hard work!" with an incredulous note in its voice.)

Sooner or later, he's going to fall off. And look awfully silly in the process.

/Just like his idol, Rabbit Bait.

cheers

eon

183 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:32:04pm

re: #123 LGoPs

And to win, conservatives must define and positively promote their essential fundamental beliefs. Limited, fiscally responsible government with a strong focus on defense and above all the exaltation of the individual and his liberty over the collective. This must be done without alienating the majority because of an overemphasis on the moral issues.
Those will come later. But first, we must win.


I don't support an "exaltation of the individual and his liberty over the collective" that doesn't also include a concern for the common good based on basic moral principals, I can't support a Republican Party that has been taken over by radical libertarians who advocate legalizing marijuana, abortion and same-sex marriage. That is selfish short term thinking that ignores the long run destructive consequences for society.

184 doppelganglander  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:33:01pm

Is there any way to force every elected and appointed Republican official, party member, and voter to read this? Because it is completely full of win.

185 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:33:02pm

re: #147 Sharmuta

Have you read The Conscience of a Conservative?

No. But I will. I've seen it at the bookstore. It'll be my next book purchase.

186 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:33:28pm

re: #178 Sharmuta

Maybe you missed this part, since you didn't bold it:

Most pro-choicers (and maybe pro-lifers) don't realize that if Roe was overturned, abortion wouldn't be illegal, it would revert back to the 50 states to decide for themselves. We can agree it's not the federal government's role, while moving on to other topics that will better help us win back seats in Congress and take back the White House.

Something BOTH sides want to ignore. They just want their views entrenched as law at the Federal level by fiat, instead of actually letting the people choose. Oh, HORRORS!

187 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:33:42pm

re: #170 LGoPs

Fine, Call him whatever you want. He is hell bent on nationalizing major portions of our industry and infrastructure. He wants to 'spread the wealth'. He thinks everything America has done before him is something to be ashamed of. He thinks he and his apparatchiks know better how to manage America's economy than the rest of us.
If it walks like a duck and it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, I guess it's a banana.
/

And on another note. Here we are on this thread, discussing the far right hyperbole that we see putting a choke hold on the conservative party, and at the same time, we throw label like Marxist on our President. This is not helping, especially when it's not even true.

One of the first and basic tenets of Marxism is a WORKER REVOLUTION, arm conflict between the workers and the bourgeoisie. I really don't see the President trying to position the American worker to go full out postal on their employers.

188 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:34:02pm

re: #178 Sharmuta

Maybe you missed this part, since you didn't bold it:


Most pro-choicers (and maybe pro-lifers) don't realize that if Roe was overturned, abortion wouldn't be illegal, it would revert back to the 50 states to decide for themselves. We can agree it's not the federal government's role, while moving on to other topics that will better help us win back seats in Congress and take back the White House.


The issue is moot for at least the forseeable future. Obama is very pro choice & his court nominations will refect that.

189 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:34:10pm

re: #173 quickjustice

You should read up on Justice Taney's dreadful Dredd Scott decision. Before the Civil War, owning slaves was a property right, because Justice Taney decreed slaves to be property.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation relied upon military authority to order the U.S. military to seize contraband (slaves) within the states in rebellion. It didn't apply to slave states like Maryland that hadn't seceded. The Proclamation had two strategic goals: to destroy the slave economy in the Confederacy, and to enlist the freed slaves in the Union Army, adding to the north's numerical advantage.

To nitpick, it also had a third goal -- to make it impossible for Great Britain (which had outlawed slavery by that point) to step in and broker a "settlement", or to assist the Confederacy, officially, in any other way.

The British textile industry was putting great pressure upon London to assist in maintaining its supply of Southern cotton.

190 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:34:25pm

Look who immediately showed up in the comments to the Sensuous Curmudgeon's post: Richard L. Kent, Esq., The World's Angriest Creationist and Totally Obsessed LGF Stalker!

That guy is a hoot.

191 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:34:27pm

re: #183 Simply Me

I don't support an "exaltation of the individual and his liberty over the collective" that doesn't also include a concern for the common good based on basic moral principals, I can't support a Republican Party that has been taken over by radical libertarians who advocate legalizing marijuana, abortion and same-sex marriage. That is selfish short term thinking that ignores the long run destructive consequences for society.

pot should be immediately legalized with restriction...the fact that it isn't is the real crime...talk about selfish thinking

192 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:34:32pm

re: #185 Soona'

No. But I will. I've seen it at the bookstore. It'll be my next book purchase.

Prepare yourself for a paradigm shift.

193 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:34:43pm

re: #180 DEZes

Fair enough, whats the difference between Marxism and socialism in your opinion?

One of the first and basic tenets of Marxism is a WORKER REVOLUTION, arm conflict between the workers and the bourgeoisie.

I really don't see the President trying to position the American worker to go full out postal on their employers.

194 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:34:49pm

re: #184 doppelganglander

Is there any way to force every elected and appointed Republican official, party member, and voter to read this? Because it is completely full of win.

Especially the voters.

195 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:34:50pm

re: #172 MandyManners

I can be dense at times.

That's okay, it needs to be reiterated.
Of course, while not free it is very much discounted for some people and very pricey for others. Quality likewise varies.
re: #178 SharmutaWell, I am happy about that. Of course, with the current government, it would quickly be made legal in the country, but at least that could then be decided at polls.

196 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:35:40pm

Later gators.

197 eon  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:36:13pm

re: #180 DEZes

Fair enough, whats the difference between Marxism and socialism in your opinion?

In a socialist state, they take all your money, give you lots of benefits, and expect you to come up with more money to pay for it all. If you fail, the country goes bankrupt, and that group of dimbulbs is replaced by another group of dimbulbs who try the same thing over again.

In a Marxist state, they take everything, and demand that you produce for "the good of the people". If you fail, they shoot you. They only lose power when they can no longer pay the guys with the guns.

/Sort of like Chicago with less fashion sense.

cheers

eon

198 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:36:33pm

re: #187 Walter L. Newton

And on another note. Here we are on this thread, discussing the far right hyperbole that we see putting a choke hold on the conservative party, and at the same time, we throw label like Marxist on our President. This is not helping, especially when it's not even true.

One of the first and basic tenets of Marxism is a WORKER REVOLUTION, arm conflict between the workers and the bourgeoisie. I really don't see the President trying to position the American worker to go full out postal on their employers.

It's only been 100 days Walter. I think the bus trips to AIG employees homes was a hell of a warning bell.......I've never seen anything close to it in my life. And the President's rhetoric stirring up anger against employers and corporations is also a harbinger of things to come.

199 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:36:51pm

re: #187 Walter L. Newton
Isn't advocating such a revolution more marxist-leninism? At the least, I think he is drowning in cultural marxism, no hypebole, wherein victim politics take the place of class politics and western socieities are viewed as a long chain of oppression.

200 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:36:59pm

re: #184 doppelganglander

Is there any way to force every elected and appointed Republican official, party member, and voter to read this? Because it is completely full of win.

Making demands and forcing people read this will only make their opposition become more entrenched AGAINST the ideas and principles contained within.

201 Last Mohican  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:37:20pm

re: #134 Simply Me

The Curmudgeon wrote:

This seems like an exageration. Have p[r]e-marital relations, contraception and masturbation been mentioned in the party platform?

I think supporting traditional marriage and opposition to abortion are substantive issues. Lumping them in with masturbation seems like a rhetorical trick to trivialize them.

I agree, that's an exaggeration, used as a rhetorical trick. Although I have certainly seen some Republican politicians oppose education about contraception as a matter of political policy, for fear that it will encourage pre-marital relations, which they deem to be wrong.

Also, "supporting traditional marriage" doesn't really mean that. It's a misleading euphemism for "opposing gay marriage."

202 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:37:37pm

re: #153 Gus 802

Contraception is often mentioned by many GOP members in the form of teaching abstinence only birth control methods. Pre-martial relations are also mentioned from time to time and occasional "slip out" such as Demint's recent comments regarding unwed pregnant teachers.

And masturbation?

203 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:38:01pm

re: #178 Sharmuta

Maybe you missed this part, since you didn't bold it:


Most pro-choicers (and maybe pro-lifers) don't realize that if Roe was overturned, abortion wouldn't be illegal, it would revert back to the 50 states to decide for themselves. We can agree it's not the federal government's role, while moving on to other topics that will better help us win back seats in Congress and take back the White House.

I wish a Republicans running for office would tell the voters just that.

204 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:38:06pm

re: #190 Charles

Look who immediately showed up in the comments to the Sensuous Curmudgeon's post: Richard L. Kent, Esq., The World's Angriest Creationist and Totally Obsessed LGF Stalker!

That guy is a hoot.

They are about the DISAPPEARANCE of 1/3 of our workforce under the age of 35.

*poof*
Gee ... they were here just yesterday ... what happened to them?

/hyperventilating idiot

205 mike(in)savage  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:38:08pm

re: #178 Sharmuta

No, I didn't miss it. Perhaps you missed my point.

How do we claim to (in your words) agree it's not the federal government's role, and then turn around and say, "but we're not going to worry about that because the subject matter is a turn-off for moderates"?

Maybe a better question is: Do you think it's possible to take a non-religious position opposing abortion? I do. And if it is possible, shouldn't we at least try?

206 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:38:17pm

re: #166 Soona'

R v W should be overturned and the question given back to the states where it belongs.

Why does it belong there? The question of abortion strikes at the very heart of personal liberty. It seems to me that the Federal level is actually the proper level to address it at.

Also, why should bans on abortion be appropriate at any level of government? Government - local, state or Federal - ought to keep it's damn nose out of my business to the greatest extent possible. This is one of those decisions that individuals are perfectly able to make for themselves.

207 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:38:51pm

re: #187 Walter L. Newton

And on another note. Here we are on this thread, discussing the far right hyperbole that we see putting a choke hold on the conservative party, and at the same time, we throw label like Marxist on our President. This is not helping, especially when it's not even true.

One of the first and basic tenets of Marxism is a WORKER REVOLUTION, arm conflict between the workers and the bourgeoisie. I really don't see the President trying to position the American worker to go full out postal on their employers.

Not yet. The unions of GM and Chrysler are just getting warmed up.

208 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:39:01pm

re: #197 eon

In a socialist state, they take all your money, give you lots of benefits, and expect you to come up with more money to pay for it all. If you fail, the country goes bankrupt, and that group of dimbulbs is replaced by another group of dimbulbs who try the same thing over again.

In a Marxist state, they take everything, and demand that you produce for "the good of the people". If you fail, they shoot you. They only lose power when they can no longer pay the guys with the guns.

/Sort of like Chicago with less fashion sense.

cheers

eon


That's a good way to distinguish between the two. In essence, then, socialism doesn't allow you to suceed, but at least it allows you to opt-out once you realize the scam the tax-payer is in. Communism will ensure "from each according to his means" like it or not.

209 doppelganglander  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:39:07pm

re: #194 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Especially the voters.

I think if the party leaders would embrace this approach and steadfastly refuse to get drawn into the same dumb, unwinnable arguments, the voters would follow immediately. I think Michael Steele is never, ever in a million years going to go for this, nor will most of the Republicans in Congress. Someone at the state level, a governor or gubernatorial candidate most likely, needs to get on this horse and ride it straight to the White House.

210 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:39:29pm

re: #201 Last Mohican

I agree, that's an exaggeration, used as a rhetorical trick. Although I have certainly seen some Republican politicians oppose education about contraception as a matter of political policy, for fear that it will encourage pre-marital relations, which they deem to be wrong.

Also, "supporting traditional marriage" doesn't really mean that. It's a misleading euphemism for "opposing gay marriage."

Which hides the hatred against homosexuals because gays don't live like the rest of decent society as defined by the far-right SoCon fringe.

211 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:39:31pm

re: #204 pre-Boomer Marine brat

*poof*
Gee ... they were here just yesterday ... what happened to them?

/hyperventilating idiot

PIMF ... I mixed up the "quote" formatting on that

212 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:40:20pm

re: #202 Simply Me

And masturbation?

I've never heard anything about that being part of a platform of any sort.

213 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:40:39pm

re: #190 Charles

Look who immediately showed up in the comments to the Sensuous Curmudgeon's post: Richard L. Kent, Esq., The World's Angriest Creationist and Totally Obsessed LGF Stalker!

That guy is a hoot.

Dahmer believed in evolution, dontcha' know. Am I supposed to go find someone to kill and eat because I do, too?

What a fucking moron.

214 quickjustice  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:40:41pm

I'm a New Yorker. Our legislature legalized abortion ten years before Roe v. Wade was decided. That means that even if Roe were overturned, abortion would remain legal in New York. I personally think Roe should be overturned, and the decision about the legality of abortion returned to the political process in the state legislatures. Outcome: most states would legalize abortion, but a few would not.

And elected officials would be making that decision, not unelected federal judges.

215 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:40:48pm

re: #199 nikis-knight

Isn't advocating such a revolution more marxist-leninism? At the least, I think he is drowning in cultural marxism, no hypebole, wherein victim politics take the place of class politics and western socieities are viewed as a long chain of oppression.

Marxism has spurned other less radical political concepts, and Obama may have an interest in those concepts, but he is not a classical Marxist.

216 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:41:07pm

re: #206 SixDegrees

Because someone else's buisiness is also at stake. And the state is the arbitor between individuals, at least when they can't settle their differences without the stronger killing the weaker.

217 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:41:25pm

re: #209 doppelganglander

I think if the party leaders would embrace this approach and steadfastly refuse to get drawn into the same dumb, unwinnable arguments, the voters would follow immediately. I think Michael Steele is never, ever in a million years going to go for this, nor will most of the Republicans in Congress. Someone at the state level, a governor or gubernatorial candidate most likely, needs to get on this horse and ride it straight to the White House.

Maybe I'm a starry-eyed idealist, but I believe that permanent change will only come from the bottom. Otherwise, it'll be another "Contract".

218 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:41:31pm

re: #210 FurryOldGuyJeans

Which hides the hatred against homosexuals because gays don't live like the rest of decent society as defined by the far-right SoCon fringe.

I want two wives...I should not have to look to the Constitution to allow it...govt should stay out of my marital business

219 Afton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:41:43pm

I'm sorry but this letter is crap.

Republicans have lost elections in 2006 and 2008 because they have NOT:

stood for the Constitution, the rule of law, national defense, free enterprise, limited government, low taxes, balanced budgets, and individual rights.

Who in their right mind thinks that the Dems won in 2008 because they were pro choice and the Repubs were pro life?! Who with any common sense thinks Barack Obama got elected because he rejected religion in this country?

The Republicans have lost because they've SPENT LIKE DEMS, they've GROWN THE GOVERNMENT and they've laid down and let the Left walk all over them on Immigration, National Defense and Taxation.

This "letter" is a joke.

220 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:41:57pm

Afghanistan's Only Pig Quarantined in Flu Fear

Afghanistan's only known pig has been locked in a room, away from visitors to Kabul zoo where it normally grazes beside deer and goats, because people are worried it could infect them with the virus popularly known as swine flu.

The pig is a curiosity in Muslim Afghanistan, where pork and pig products are illegal because they are considered irreligious, and has been in quarantine since Sunday after visitors expressed alarm it could spread the new flu strain.

"For now the pig is under quarantine, we built it a room because of swine influenza," Aziz Gul Saqib, director of Kabul Zoo, told Reuters. "We've done this because people are worried about getting the flu."

221 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:42:26pm

re: #183 Simply Me

I don't support an "exaltation of the individual and his liberty over the collective" that doesn't also include a concern for the common good based on basic moral principals, I can't support a Republican Party that has been taken over by radical libertarians who advocate legalizing marijuana, abortion and same-sex marriage. That is selfish short term thinking that ignores the long run destructive consequences for society.


I certainly said nothing about any of those subjects. I think the gist of my point was that you have to choose your battles and the piece of ground you're going to fight on. If everything becomes a battle then at the end you will probably lose, out of total exhaustion, if nothing else.

222 MittDoesNotCompute  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:42:45pm

re: #197 eon

In a socialist state, they take all your money, give you lots of benefits, and expect you to come up with more money to pay for it all. If you fail, the country goes bankrupt, and that group of dimbulbs is replaced by another group of dimbulbs who try the same thing over again.

In a Marxist state, they take everything, and demand that you produce for "the good of the people". If you fail, they shoot you. They only lose power when they can no longer pay the guys with the guns.

/Sort of like Chicago with less fashion sense.

cheers

eon

In other words:

Socialism = England, France, and most of Europe
Marxist = the former Soviet Union, Cuba, and now Venezuela (possibly)

223 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:43:13pm

re: #159 pre-Boomer Marine brat

re: #217 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Even when morality is legislated...

224 Last Mohican  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:43:42pm

re: #210 FurryOldGuyJeans

Which hides the hatred against homosexuals because gays don't live like the rest of decent society as defined by the far-right SoCon fringe.

Exactly.

And by the way, I've always felt that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both slightly dishonest euphemisms too. The former means "anti-abortion," and the latter means "pro-abortion rights."

225 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:43:58pm

re: #219 Afton

I'm sorry but this letter is crap.

Republicans have lost elections in 2006 and 2008 because they have NOT:

stood for the Constitution, the rule of law, national defense, free enterprise, limited government, low taxes, balanced budgets, and individual rights.

Who in their right mind thinks that the Dems won in 2008 because they were pro choice and the Repubs were pro life?! Who with any common sense thinks Barack Obama got elected because he rejected religion in this country?

The Republicans have lost because they've SPENT LIKE DEMS, they've GROWN THE GOVERNMENT and they've laid down and let the Left walk all over them on Immigration, National Defense and Taxation.

This "letter" is a joke.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but ... "excuse me, do you understand that the letter's saying what you're saying?"

226 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:44:36pm

re: #188 opnion

The issue is moot for at least the forseeable future. Obama is very pro choice & his court nominations will refect that.

Ultimately, it really doesn't matter what the SCOTUS thinks. If Roe were overturned tomorrow, Congress would pass a law remedying the situation by week's end.

227 eon  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:44:39pm

re: #187 Walter L. Newton

And on another note. Here we are on this thread, discussing the far right hyperbole that we see putting a choke hold on the conservative party, and at the same time, we throw label like Marxist on our President. This is not helping, especially when it's not even true.

One of the first and basic tenets of Marxism is a WORKER REVOLUTION, arm conflict between the workers and the bourgeoisie. I really don't see the President trying to position the American worker to go full out postal on their employers.

That would require an armed proletariat, or at least giving arms to those who would be storming the Winter Palace, or the Bastille, or whatever. (Two farces that have been over- mythologized, IMHO.) I can't see him overcoming his visceral revulsion for civilians having guns, even to that degree.

If The One is any sort of "socialist", he's a syndicalist- he wants control of industry, so he can tell it what to do, and then reap the benefits thereof. He never seems to grasp the concept that a syndicalist leader can't afford mistakes; when you are basically micromanaging everything, you'd better never be wrong. And when, not if, you do screw up, you learn the hard way that the s#!t can only be made to run so far downhill- before it backs up in your face.

He wouldn't be the first one to make that sort of error. Never mind Mussolini- look up James Ramsay MacDonald.

cheers

eon

228 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:44:48pm

re: #203 MandyManners

I wish a Republicans running for office would tell the voters just that.

No dice. It's a copout that won't fly on such a national issue.

229 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:45:02pm

re: #224 Last Mohican

Exactly.

And by the way, I've always felt that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both slightly dishonest euphemisms too. The former means "anti-abortion," and the latter means "pro-abortion rights."

To me, "pro-choice" does not mean "pro-abortion" but, the right to make an individual choice.

230 quickjustice  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:45:06pm

I don't think Obama has shown himself to be a Marxist as President. He did admit to attending the meetings of many radical Marxist and communist organizations in NYC while he was in college.

His policies so far seem to be "green Fascist", meaning public-private "partnerships" with large corporations and labor unions in which the government picks winners and losers, and "cap and trade" environmentalism that unifies his followers as quasi-religious followers of the Earth Goddess.

231 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:45:20pm

re: #226 SixDegrees

Ultimately, it really doesn't matter what the SCOTUS thinks. If Roe were overturned tomorrow, Congress would pass a law remedying the situation by week's end.


And then at least we could have an election on this barbarism.

232 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:45:21pm

re: #215 Walter L. Newton

Marxism has spurned other less radical political concepts, and Obama may have an interest in those concepts, but he is not a classical Marxist.

I will take your thoughts under advisement.

233 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:46:41pm

re: #202 Simply Me

And masturbation?

I did find this which is attibutable to SCOTUS Judge Scalia:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

Scalia, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 02—102

JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE and TYRON GARNER,
PETITIONERS v. TEXAS

234 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:47:03pm

re: #223 goddessoftheclassroom

re: #217 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Even when morality is legislated...

We all have the same problem

235 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:47:21pm

re: #228 Spare O'Lake

No dice. It's a copout that won't fly on such a national issue.

That's not a failure of the GOP but of individual courage on the part of the candidate.

236 debutaunt  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:47:21pm

re: #193 Walter L. Newton

One of the first and basic tenets of Marxism is a WORKER REVOLUTION, arm conflict between the workers and the bourgeoisie.

I really don't see the President trying to position the American worker to go full out postal on their employers.

In honor of Cinco de Mayo: "HUELGA!"

237 Afton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:47:32pm

re: #225 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but ... "excuse me, do you understand that the letter's saying what you're saying?"

What I'm saying is that this letter spends half of one paragraph, mostly as an aside, mentioning the real reasons the Right has lost elections and spent 6 PARAGRAPHS on poppycock. Read it again and tell me that this letter isn't saying the REAL reason the Right has lost is because of Creationism and sex/abortion. And that's absurd.

238 wiffersnapper  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:49:03pm

good stuff

239 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:49:07pm

You can search to your hearts content for the SCOTUS using keywords here.

Cornell University - LII / Legal Information Institute

240 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:49:15pm

re: #220 Killgore Trout

Afghanistan's Only Pig Quarantined in Flu Fear

Afghanistan's only known pig has been locked in a room, away from visitors to Kabul zoo where it normally grazes beside deer and goats, because people are worried it could infect them with the virus popularly known as swine flu.

"Cry Hamhock and let slip the Hogs of War"
/ I couldn't resist.

241 eon  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:49:19pm

re: #208 nikis-knight

That's a good way to distinguish between the two. In essence, then, socialism doesn't allow you to suceed, but at least it allows you to opt-out once you realize the scam the tax-payer is in. Communism will ensure "from each according to his means" like it or not.

And Communists never seem to understand the principle of, "If the cow isn't giving enough milk, shooting it won't increase production". Socialists at least grasp the concept of "we need more cows" even if they are unclear on how to acquire same while staying under budget.

A capitalist, of course, starts with two cows and a bull. Plus a lot of fodder for same.

cheers

eon

242 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:49:30pm

re: #216 nikis-knight

Because someone else's buisiness is also at stake. And the state is the arbitor between individuals, at least when they can't settle their differences without the stronger killing the weaker.

The law disagrees. Unless I missed the statute conferring personhood at some particular moment.

243 quickjustice  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:49:37pm

re: #233 Gus 802

Scalia was making an argument that it is appropriate for government to regulate sexual conduct to some degree. Lawrence is so broadly worded that even bestiality and buggery now are constitutional rights. Libertarians may applaud this, but I find it hard to stomach the thought of people having sex with their pets.

244 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:50:39pm

re: #229 MandyManners

To me, "pro-choice" does not mean "pro-abortion" but, the right to make an individual choice.

Not really. They tend to disdain women who choose to have children with birth defects, for instance. Hence Trig being called 'it' last year and the criticism of Palin for carrying him to birth.

245 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:50:59pm

re: #242 SixDegrees

The law disagrees. Unless I missed the statute conferring personhood at some particular moment.

So? Surely you realized that we were talking about what the law should be, not just about what it is? Try again?

246 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:51:13pm

re: #178 Sharmuta

Maybe you missed this part, since you didn't bold it:


Most pro-choicers (and maybe pro-lifers) don't realize that if Roe was overturned, abortion wouldn't be illegal, it would revert back to the 50 states to decide for themselves. We can agree it's not the federal government's role, while moving on to other topics that will better help us win back seats in Congress and take back the White House.

Abortion is such a hot-button national issue that efforts to download the issue to the states will be seen as a cowardly and sneaky copout.

247 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:51:28pm

re: #237 Afton

What I'm saying is that this letter spends half of one paragraph, mostly as an aside, mentioning the real reasons the Right has lost elections and spent 6 PARAGRAPHS on poppycock. Read it again and tell me that this letter isn't saying the REAL reason the Right has lost is because of Creationism and sex/abortion. And that's absurd.

I only personally know a few of my friends that were afraid of the religious right, but nationwide, it was a factor. More then a few women would never vote for a pro lifer.

248 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:51:39pm

re: #237 Afton

What I'm saying is that this letter spends half of one paragraph, mostly as an aside, mentioning the real reasons the Right has lost elections and spent 6 PARAGRAPHS on poppycock. Read it again and tell me that this letter isn't saying the REAL reason the Right has lost is because of Creationism and sex/abortion. And that's absurd.

you are misreading him....he's clearly saying that since the GOP has lost elections, it has become consumed with these other issues....not that these other issues were the cause of the defeats

249 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:51:52pm

re: #229 MandyManners

To me, "pro-choice" does not mean "pro-abortion" but, the right to make an individual choice.

Totally agree. As I said upthread, this is one of those decisions that an individual is capable of making all on their own, without the government imposing a choice for them.

250 debutaunt  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:52:11pm

re: #229 MandyManners

To me, "pro-choice" does not mean "pro-abortion" but, the right to make an individual choice.

Yes, and the government should not be involved in paying for it or in any other way.

251 doppelganglander  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:52:12pm

re: #217 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Maybe I'm a starry-eyed idealist, but I believe that permanent change will only come from the bottom. Otherwise, it'll be another "Contract".

Well, I'm on the bottom, and I can tell you no one listens to me, not even in my own house. :) I do think the grass roots can produce a leader, and a true leader inspires individuals. It takes someone who is going to stand up to the extremely noisy far right and tells them to STFD and STFU. Or, more politely, just refuses to engage with them. Unfortunately, virtually every elected Republican is terrified of the fundamentalists and believes they can't win without them, especially in the South.

The Dems have embraced their crazies and given them way too much power in the party and in government, which I think will eventually bite them in the ass. Embracing the right wing crazies worked for a while, i.e. the Reagan years, but they are clearly dragging the party down at this point and need to be kept at arm's length.

252 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:52:58pm

re: #244 rightymouse

Not really. They tend to disdain women who choose to have children with birth defects, for instance. Hence Trig being called 'it' last year and the criticism of Palin for carrying him to birth.

Not every pro-choice person believes that. In fact, I bet few do.

253 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:53:24pm

re: #237 Afton

What I'm saying is that this letter spends half of one paragraph, mostly as an aside, mentioning the real reasons the Right has lost elections and spent 6 PARAGRAPHS on poppycock. Read it again and tell me that this letter isn't saying the REAL reason the Right has lost is because of Creationism and sex/abortion. And that's absurd.

That's not what it's saying.

The letter opens with "As our party is going though a much-needed period of introspection..." and continues in the next paragraph with "... what issues dominate our political discourse?"

I take that as specific reference to the current debate within the party.

254 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:53:35pm

re: #245 nikis-knight

So? Surely you realized that we were talking about what the law should be, not just about what it is? Try again?

The law is not going to change in this regard. At least, not until the religious right establishes it's pined-for theocracy in the US.

255 Last Mohican  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:53:40pm

re: #244 rightymouse

Not really. They tend to disdain women who choose to have children with birth defects, for instance. Hence Trig being called 'it' last year and the criticism of Palin for carrying him to birth.

That's bullshit.

256 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:53:51pm

re: #247 avanti

I only personally know a few of my friends that were afraid of the religious right, but nationwide, it was a factor. More then a few women would never vote for a pro lifer.

I've always had a disdain for single issue voters. You could clone Hitler and as long as you made him pro-choice he'd get their vote.

257 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:53:57pm

re: #240 LGoPs

"Cry Hamhock and let slip the Hogs of War"
/ I couldn't resist.

/you swine!

258 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:54:31pm

re: #243 quickjustice

Scalia was making an argument that it is appropriate for government to regulate sexual conduct to some degree. Lawrence is so broadly worded that even bestiality and buggery now are constitutional rights. Libertarians may applaud this, but I find it hard to stomach the thought of people having sex with their pets.

Well, I think bestiality is a bizarre practice but making it a political issue is bizarre. The idea of using law enforcement and judicial resources to prosecute such matters would also have to be limited to extreme cases. I think it's rare so it's nothing that I concern myself with. Frankly I wasn't even thinking about that.

259 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:54:39pm

re: #257 pre-Boomer Marine brat

/you swine!

Hamist.

260 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:55:08pm

re: #251 doppelganglander

Well, I'm on the bottom, and I can tell you no one listens to me, not even in my own house. :) I do think the grass roots can produce a leader, and a true leader inspires individuals. It takes someone who is going to stand up to the extremely noisy far right and tells them to STFD and STFU. Or, more politely, just refuses to engage with them. Unfortunately, virtually every elected Republican is terrified of the fundamentalists and believes they can't win without them, especially in the South.

The Dems have embraced their crazies and given them way too much power in the party and in government, which I think will eventually bite them in the ass. Embracing the right wing crazies worked for a while, i.e. the Reagan years, but they are clearly dragging the party down at this point and need to be kept at arm's length.

You're right.

/no pun intended

261 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:55:48pm

re: #252 MandyManners
I respect pro-choice positions on everything that doesn't have life or death consequences for others. Being pro-choice on abortion is not merely an extension of being pro-liberty, but also a statement that there is no possible rights or worth whatsoever that a fetus has intrinsically, and complete certainty that you are right in the matter.

262 Afton  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:55:53pm

re: #248 albusteve

you are misreading him....he's clearly saying that since the GOP has lost elections, it has become consumed with these other issues....not that these other issues were the cause of the defeats

ablusteve,

I can see how you can read that into this as well but look at this paragraph:

While the other party has been winning elections and undermining everything we have traditionally valued, what issues dominate our political discourse? Our party has been talking about sex and religion.

That clearly states that Dems were winning elections while the Repubs were talking about sex and religion and that is false.

263 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:56:01pm

re: #237 Afton

What I'm saying is that this letter spends half of one paragraph, mostly as an aside, mentioning the real reasons the Right has lost elections and spent 6 PARAGRAPHS on poppycock. Read it again and tell me that this letter isn't saying the REAL reason the Right has lost is because of Creationism and sex/abortion. And that's absurd.

Hate to break it to you, but the religious right is a very big weapon against the right. It scares away a lot of moderates, especially those who are not evangelical christians.
Tell me, how would you feel about a political party whose platform was partially based on religious beliefs foreign to your own, and sought to enshrine those beliefs in law?

264 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:56:51pm

re: #191 albusteve

pot should be immediately legalized with restriction...the fact that it isn't is the real crime...talk about selfish thinking

Yes, that opinion is a good example of selfish thinking.
"the fact that it isn't is the real crime". Very funny. Just like an adolescent saying to the mother that if she won't give the adolescent what the adolescent wants:
a) "You don't love me", or
b) "You are the meanest Mom ever", or
c) "I hate you."

265 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:56:54pm

re: #252 MandyManners

Not every pro-choice person believes that. In fact, I bet few do.

The ones I know believe that.

Anyway, the issue of abortion regardless it's called 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life', is not within the role of the Federal Government to legislate one way or another. Same thing with marriage.

266 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:56:58pm

re: #254 SixDegrees

The law is not going to change in this regard. At least, not until the religious right establishes it's pined-for theocracy in the US.


I don't believe you. But I'll sooner be convenced we need a theocracy than that we should contenancy wide-scale termination of human fetuses, and I dearly love our secular constitution.

267 eon  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:57:05pm

re: #222 talon_262

In other words:

Socialism = England, France, and most of Europe
Marxist = the former Soviet Union, Cuba, and now Venezuela (possibly)

Plus Red China, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc., (in fact, about half of the Third World) on the Marxist side.

Generally, such states last until either they run out of money to pay their triggermen (as I said)- or just run out of money (resources), period.

In the latter case, they don't become "democratic". They become Somalia.

/Zimbabwe's about 80% of the way there as we speak.

cheers

eon

268 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:57:17pm

re: #256 LGoPs

I've always had a disdain for single issue voters. You could clone Hitler and as long as you made him pro-choice he'd get their vote.

That's not a problem for the GOP, a pro choice candidate would never get through the primary.

269 Eowyn2  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:57:18pm

It wouldn't bother me if pot were legalized and controlled. "sex and religion" are talked about so often is because they are the 'hot button issues' which have driven a wedge into the Republican/conservative party.

The party platform under Reagan was anti-abortion, small government, personal responsibility and "capitalism rules, other systems drool."

We cannot simply act as if sex and religion do not exist. The Republican party DOES have to define what its limitations are. Where is the line drawn? Is all sex good, all religion bad? The party and the press is giving a lot of exposure to the intelligent design people. The more press exposure the people get, the more party exposure they receive until the wheel is turning the mouse.

Sex and Religion are what turn the world. The Republican party has no nationally recognized individual who has the balls to stand up and say. STOP THIS F**&^ING RIDE RIGHT NOW.

We need to stop and say "okay you wackos on the far right fringe, religious teachings belong in the home, and you wackos on the far left, the 10 commandments stay in the courthouse, quit whining. And no more of that silly assed suing over someone saying "merry Christmas" or "Happy Hannukah" What's wrong with a tree or menorah and why the hell should people be ashamed of their religion?

I could go on and on but I'm already pissed off at the idiots marching against capitolism and the release of the abu graib and gitmo pics and bullshit.

270 mike(in)savage  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:57:22pm

re: #261 nikis-knight

I respect pro-choice positions on everything that doesn't have life or death consequences for others. Being pro-choice on abortion is not merely an extension of being pro-liberty, but also a statement that there is no possible rights or worth whatsoever that a fetus has intrinsically, and complete certainty that you are right in the matter.

I concur.

271 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:57:39pm

re: #246 Spare O'Lake

Abortion is such a hot-button national issue that efforts to download the issue to the states will be seen as a cowardly and sneaky copout.

It would almost immediately wind up right back in front of SCOTUS anyway. Or the Congress. Or both.

And insisting that the states address the issue simply passes the buck; in my book, this shouldn't be something any level of government sticks it's nose into.

272 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:57:39pm

re: #259 DEZes

Hamist.

Sorry. I'm not good enough to aspire to that status.
I'm only a Hamlet.

273 quickjustice  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:57:45pm

re: #258 Gus 802

The Supreme Court declared that state laws outlawing bestiality, among other "bizarre" sexual practices are unconstitutional. I think it's perfectly reasonable for there to be some state regulation of sexual behavior, without going overboard. It's the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that has "politicized" this issue.

274 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:58:39pm

re: #255 Last Mohican

That's bullshit.


No it's not. The avid pro-choice people I know made fun of Palin and Trig. That said, I still don't think it's the Federal Government's role to legislate one way or another on this issue.

275 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:59:19pm

re: #262 Afton

That clearly states that Dems were winning elections while the Repubs were talking about sex and religion and that is false.

yes, but those issues were not what turned out millions of unenlightened droolers into the BO camp...not one in a thousand could describe ID and it's assault on public schools....it is a fine line we are talking about, cause vrs destraction or some such

276 Hawaii69  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:59:19pm

>But those who now govern have no concern for or even understanding of such matters.

277 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:59:47pm

re: #261 nikis-knight

I respect pro-choice positions on everything that doesn't have life or death consequences for others. Being pro-choice on abortion is not merely an extension of being pro-liberty, but also a statement that there is no possible rights or worth whatsoever that a fetus has intrinsically, and complete certainty that you are right in the matter.

That is the real issue.
A woman has the right to kill her unborn child - always, sometimes or never?

278 obscured by clouds  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:59:50pm

How is it that all the Republicans campained on was abstinence, creationism, invasive Christianity, and abortion, and I somehow missed it? And it was so bad that America was forced to choose the less radical choice who just happened to be a virulent anti-capitalist whose "spritual mentor" preached "God DAMN America!" to him for 20+ years?

I'm a conservative who's not changing a damn thing. Commentary like this is meant to make all conservatives sound like knuckle dragging fools because the party has a minority of idiots who believe in BS like creationism. News Flash! The MAJORITY of liberals are anti-defense, blame America firsters, who want to wreck the economy for "fairness" and conservatives are the ones who need to change? Give me a break.

279 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:00:04pm

re: #275 albusteve

...not one in a thousand could describe ID and it's assault on public schools....

Are you absolutely certain of that?

280 Last Mohican  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:00:23pm

re: #246 Spare O'Lake

Abortion is such a hot-button national issue that efforts to download the issue to the states will be seen as a cowardly and sneaky copout.

I agree, that would be sort of like saying "that's above my pay grade."

281 cmaher  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:00:23pm

Amen to this letter. Religion is TOO important for the government to be involved in any way shape of form. As for the "sex" side - well, I thought the Republican Party was for LESS government. That means I want them OUT of my bedroom - or anyone elses!

282 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:00:46pm

re: #273 quickjustice

The Supreme Court declared that state laws outlawing bestiality, among other "bizarre" sexual practices are unconstitutional. I think it's perfectly reasonable for there to be some state regulation of sexual behavior, without going overboard. It's the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that has "politicized" this issue.

I think it's weird but I don't see what point it would be to having laws like that around for the most part. Again, I don't sit around my house thinking about the weird behavior of other humans. Nor do I think we should have a sexuality police like they do in Saudi Arabia even if it is strange.

283 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:01:10pm

re: #206 SixDegrees

Why does it belong there? The question of abortion strikes at the very heart of personal liberty. It seems to me that the Federal level is actually the proper level to address it at.

Also, why should bans on abortion be appropriate at any level of government? Government - local, state or Federal - ought to keep it's damn nose out of my business to the greatest extent possible. This is one of those decisions that individuals are perfectly able to make for themselves.

Because the question of abortion is looked upon by many to be a question of morality not liberty. And as you well know, perceptions of morality differ some if not greatly throughout the nation, usually in regions. Therefore it only makes sense that each state let their citizens vote on what they think is right or wrong. If one feels strongly enough about his beliefs and finds himself in a state that doesn't share the same, then the individual can move to a state that does. Besides, the SCOTUS had no business legislating from the bench as they so often have on other issues as well.

284 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:01:15pm

re: #277 Spare O'Lake

That is the real issue.
A woman has the right to kill her unborn child - always, sometimes or never?

You have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her uterus:

Always, sometimes, or never?

285 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:01:16pm

re: #268 avanti

That's not a problem for the GOP, a pro choice candidate would never get through the primary.

And a Pro-Life candidate wouldn't ever even be allowed to speak in the Democratic camp. Remember Gov Bob Casey (D) back a few years ago. Couldn't even address the convention. The convention of the tolerant and open minded no less.
/ *Spit*

286 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:01:19pm

re: #264 Simply Me

Yes, that opinion is a good example of selfish thinking.
"the fact that it isn't is the real crime". Very funny. Just like an adolescent saying to the mother that if she won't give the adolescent what the adolescent wants:
a) "You don't love me", or
b) "You are the meanest Mom ever", or
c) "I hate you."

no it is not "just like"...the whole issue seeths with hypcricy...you failed to mention the damnation of Budweiser in your original post

287 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:01:27pm

re: #278 obscured by clouds

Could you explain your avatar picture?

288 IslandLibertarian  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:01:46pm

Hit and run post from Kyoto...(LGF takes forever to load and refresh newcomments)
The Religious/Morality stance of the Republican party has always turned me off.
The governmenthas no business in business, nor in my bedroom, church or classroom (within reason).
Hence "IslandLibertarian"
Off to see some shrines in the most beautiful city I've ever seen in Japan.
Jamata 'tiles!

289 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:01:48pm

bbl

290 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:01:55pm
291 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:02:13pm

re: #279 Altermite

Are you absolutely certain of that?

of course not....but I'll be ready for the quiz!

292 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:02:28pm

re: #290 buzzsawmonkey

The important question is, will National Health Care cover doggie syphilis?

For the dog or the human? //

293 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:02:42pm
294 Afton  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:02:48pm

re: #263 Altermite

Hate to break it to you, but the religious right is a very big weapon against the right. It scares away a lot of moderates, especially those who are not evangelical christians.
Tell me, how would you feel about a political party whose platform was partially based on religious beliefs foreign to your own, and sought to enshrine those beliefs in law?

Let me make sure I understand you. You're saying that there is this HUGE block of voters in America, these "moderates" that believe in limited government, strong defense, protection of the Constitution, and low taxation and because the Republicans have evangelical Christians in their base, those "moderates" cast a vote for Barack Obama who was seeking BIG government, WEAK defense, DECIMATION of the Constitution and HIGH taxation? Do I have that right?

295 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:03:05pm

re: #278 obscured by clouds

How is it that all the Republicans campained on was abstinence, creationism, invasive Christianity, and abortion, and I somehow missed it? And it was so bad that America was forced to choose the less radical choice who just happened to be a virulent anti-capitalist whose "spritual mentor" preached "God DAMN America!" to him for 20+ years?

I'm a conservative who's not changing a damn thing. Commentary like this is meant to make all conservatives sound like knuckle dragging fools because the party has a minority of idiots who believe in BS like creationism. News Flash! The MAJORITY of liberals are anti-defense, blame America firsters, who want to wreck the economy for "fairness" and conservatives are the ones who need to change? Give me a break.

Then see re: #288 IslandLibertarian for your answer.

296 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:03:13pm

re: #284 Altermite

You have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her uterus:

Always, sometimes, or never?


Always when there is someone else there, never when there isn't. Clear and based on principle.
Just like: "You have the right to tell someone what to do with their guns always, sometime, never?"
Always when it is pointed at someone else who isn't threatening anyone, never when it isn't.

297 brookly red  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:03:54pm

re: #284 Altermite

You have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her uterus:

Always, sometimes, or never?

I think the question is what is IN her uterus...

298 Last Mohican  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:04:00pm

re: #274 rightymouse

No it's not. The avid pro-choice people I know made fun of Palin and Trig. That said, I still don't think it's the Federal Government's role to legislate one way or another on this issue.

Making fun of a child because of a medical problem is extremely disgusting, no matter who does it or for what reason.

Suggesting that a woman is wrong for carrying a Down syndrome baby to term, i.e. that she should have been forced to have an abortion, is the antithesis of being "pro-choice." I have never known a person who felt that way, or even seen such an argument in the vast expanse of the internet. If you know people who so argued, then they have no right to call themselves "pro-choice," and I can't imagine that they would represent any significant percentage of those who do.

299 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:04:31pm

re: #296 nikis-knight

Always when there is someone else there, never when there isn't. Clear and based on principle.
Just like: "You have the right to tell someone what to do with their guns always, sometime, never?"
Always when it is pointed at someone else who isn't threatening anyone, never when it isn't.

But the problem is, when does something become someone?

300 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:05:06pm

re: #263 Altermite

Hate to break it to you, but the religious right is a very big weapon against the right. It scares away a lot of moderates, especially those who are not evangelical christians.
Tell me, how would you feel about a political party whose platform was partially based on religious beliefs foreign to your own, and sought to enshrine those beliefs in law?

Agree. Lots of people who thought it was a great idea for a judge to erect a stone monument of the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse he practiced in were suddenly silenced when asked how they would feel if a Muslim judge hung versus from the Koran on the walls of his courtroom.

And personally, I was both disgusted and terrified by Tom Delay's preposterous, wretched and disgusting intrusion into the Schiavo incident. A whole generation of Boomers struggling with their own aging parents and the threat of their potential incapacity took one look at that deplorable attempt at subjugation of personal rights and walked away from the entire GOP as a result.

301 eon  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:05:23pm

re: #191 albusteve

pot should be immediately legalized with restriction...the fact that it isn't is the real crime...talk about selfish thinking

Anyone who believes that needs to put their money where their mouth is.

By which I mean, with the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, a "progressive" majority there, a "progressive" President who admits to toking himself, and a news media that would be cheering for it, The Stars Are Aligned. You will never have a better chance to accomplish it through the legislative process.

So step up to the plate and start a national "grass-roots" (excuse the pun) movement. If you really believe in it, go for it.

You won't get any argument from me, and I'm sure I'll find it entertaining to watch.

/Of course, I enjoyed Monty Python's Flying Circus, too.

cheers

eon

302 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:05:27pm

re: #294 Afton

Let me make sure I understand you. You're saying that there is this HUGE block of voters in America, these "moderates" that believe in limited government, strong defense, protection of the Constitution, and low taxation and because the Republicans have evangelical Christians in their base, those "moderates" cast a vote for Barack Obama who was seeking BIG government, WEAK defense, DECIMATION of the Constitution and HIGH taxation? Do I have that right?

I'd sooner believe that there is a huge block of voters that just want free stuff, and would vote for R's if they out spent dems (and got credit for it), but then, I'm a pessimist I guess.

303 quickjustice  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:06:04pm

re: #277 Spare O'Lake

The common law of England for a thousand years was that abortion was a misdemeanor offense. (Punishable by less than a year in jail). That means that a fetus did not have the right to life of a human being who was born alive. It also means that killing an unborn child did not rise to the level of murder.

Most criminal abortion statutes took a similar approach. Abortion was a crime, but not a serious crime. Roe v. Wade said that state legislatures could not make abortion a crime during the first trimester, might be able to make abortion a crime during the second trimester, and could make abortion a crime during the third trimester. Legal geniuses, correct?

304 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:06:10pm

re: #246 Spare O'Lake

Abortion is such a hot-button national issue that efforts to download the issue to the states will be seen as a cowardly and sneaky copout.


I disagree. It's a state issue. And if the GOP keeps pounding away on abortion at the national level, we'll keep losing. Same thing with gay marriage and any other hot button that the Dems have been successful at making us play defense to.

305 Bloodnok  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:06:27pm

re: #190 Charles

Look who immediately showed up in the comments to the Sensuous Curmudgeon's post: Richard L. Kent, Esq., The World's Angriest Creationist and Totally Obsessed LGF Stalker!

That guy is a hoot.

Charles, next time you are walking, stop suddenly. See if he walks into your back.

306 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:07:29pm

re: #301 eon

Anyone who believes that needs to put their money where their mouth is.

By which I mean, with the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, a "progressive" majority there, a "progressive" President who admits to toking himself, and a news media that would be cheering for it, The Stars Are Aligned. You will never have a better chance to accomplish it through the legislative process.

So step up to the plate and start a national "grass-roots" (excuse the pun) movement. If you really believe in it, go for it.

You won't get any argument from me, and I'm sure I'll find it entertaining to watch.

/Of course, I enjoyed Monty Python's Flying Circus, too.

cheers

eon

good political theater...HIGH drama!

307 Shr_Nfr  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:07:42pm

re: #294 Afton

Sadly it is true. I know some folks who would never vote for a ticket with Palin on it because of her religious views.

In other news, the Chrysler lawyer told the court today that the government will get zero money back from its earlier loan and its dip loan. Its all going to go to the UAW. Now doesn't that make you proud to be an American? All I know is that I will never, ever buy a Chrysler product again (and I have bought one in the past) for as long as I live.

308 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:08:13pm

re: #285 LGoPs

And a Pro-Life candidate wouldn't ever even be allowed to speak in the Democratic camp. Remember Gov Bob Casey (D) back a few years ago. Couldn't even address the convention. The convention of the tolerant and open minded no less.
/ *Spit*

I was not aware of that, but that changes nothing. the Dems platform is socially liberal and there is no reason to change it if it pleases the voters. If you want to continue with a socially conservative platform, you just become more marginalized as your base dies off and replaced with a younger, more socially liberal group.

309 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:08:16pm

re: #273 quickjustice

The Supreme Court declared that state laws outlawing bestiality, among other "bizarre" sexual practices are unconstitutional. I think it's perfectly reasonable for there to be some state regulation of sexual behavior, without going overboard. It's the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that has "politicized" this issue.

I don't see that as reasonable at all as long as adults are involved. As far as barnyard animals, I'm just not seeing how it's the government's business.

Ultimately, the problem is: who decides what's meant by "overboard"?

I'm just not getting how this is something government should be involved in at all. It's an attempt to legislate morality, a certain loser.

310 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:09:08pm

re: #304 rightymouse

I disagree. It's a state issue. And if the GOP keeps pounding away on abortion at the national level, we'll keep losing. Same thing with gay marriage and any other hot button that the Dems have been successful at making us play defense to.

Your point of view is interesting. I view the GOP religious right as being the ones who are doing the "pounding".

311 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:10:20pm

re: #299 pjaicomo

But the problem is, when does something become someone?


Well, we've proved that there is nothing special about birth; babies can be delieved via C-section prior to full development and are babies like any others. Viability is a moving target. There is no fixed point, growth and development is a gradual process from begininng through birth and beyond.
Well, there is one point. Conception. The point of acquiring new DNA, from which point onwards there is no sudden transition, only gradual growth.

312 quickjustice  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:10:38pm

re: #309 SixDegrees

I think it's cruelty to animals, who really lack capacity to consent to such treatment. But that would interfere with the right of animal owners to engage in extreme intimacy with their pets!

I think we're moving into a libertarian paradise here!

313 Afton  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:11:09pm

re: #307 Shr_Nfr

Sadly it is true. I know some folks who would never vote for a ticket with Palin on it because of her religious views.

I would say that the majority of Americans would vote for Sarah Palin because of her conservative message and her religious views would only add to that majority.

314 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:11:37pm

re: #309 SixDegrees

As far as barnyard animals, I'm just not seeing how it's the government's business.

Do you want to buy cheese from THAT goat?

315 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:11:41pm

re: #303 quickjustice

Roe v. Wade said that state legislatures could not make abortion a crime during the first trimester, might be able to make abortion a crime during the second trimester, and could make abortion a crime during the third trimester. Legal geniuses, correct?

The court, in another decision explicitly referenced in Roe ("Doe") expanded the defintion of health so broadly that it is effectively impossible to prevent at any stage of pregnancy in current law.

316 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:12:08pm

re: #311 nikis-knight

Well, we've proved that there is nothing special about birth; babies can be delieved via C-section prior to full development and are babies like any others. Viability is a moving target. There is no fixed point, growth and development is a gradual process from begininng through birth and beyond.
Well, there is one point. Conception. The point of acquiring new DNA, from which point onwards there is no sudden transition, only gradual growth.

But I hope you can agree that believing conception marks personhood is a philosophical issue?

What about quickening? When is it conception? When the sperm enters the egg?

317 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:12:14pm

re: #309 SixDegrees

I don't see that as reasonable at all as long as adults are involved. As far as barnyard animals, I'm just not seeing how it's the government's business.

Ultimately, the problem is: who decides what's meant by "overboard"?

I'm just not getting how this is something government should be involved in at all. It's an attempt to legislate morality, a certain loser.

You think bestiality should be ignored?

318 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:12:26pm

re: #298 Last Mohican

Making fun of a child because of a medical problem is extremely disgusting, no matter who does it or for what reason.

Suggesting that a woman is wrong for carrying a Down syndrome baby to term, i.e. that she should have been forced to have an abortion, is the antithesis of being "pro-choice." I have never known a person who felt that way, or even seen such an argument in the vast expanse of the internet. If you know people who so argued, then they have no right to call themselves "pro-choice," and I can't imagine that they would represent any significant percentage of those who do.


It is definitely the antithesis of being 'pro-choice', but I saw and heard more disgusting things out of people last year who consider themselves to be members of the party of 'nice' and 'tolerance' and women's rights/feminism than I care to think about.

I still don't believe abortion should be decided one way or the other at the Federal level.

319 quickjustice  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:13:03pm

re: #317 DEZes

Apparently, and he has a talking pet parakeet who can swear to it! ;-)

320 obscured by clouds  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:13:40pm

re: #287 Walter L. Newton

Could you explain your avatar picture?

It's from the movie Caddyshack. That's the look on the fisherman's face right as he's getting ready to get run over by Rodney Dangerfield's yacht. He and I have alot in common after this last election.

321 firepilot  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:13:42pm

re: #281 cmaher

Amen to this letter. Religion is TOO important for the government to be involved in any way shape of form. As for the "sex" side - well, I thought the Republican Party was for LESS government. That means I want them OUT of my bedroom - or anyone elses!

Yeah, but it is getting out of hand, they way so many social conservatives want to call anyone a RINO who is not for a social conservative nanny state. Its like some bizarro-land, where a sizable portion of "Republicans" have no clue what conservatism is, and think being a Republican is like being the opposite ideologically as the Dems, but still with a big government to enforce those ideas.

Fiscal conservatism is what can get things back on track, not even more big government spending and people obsessed with sex and religion.

If there are two issues that are totally in the sphere of individual rights and freedom, it is sex and religion.

322 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:13:44pm

re: #304 rightymouse

I disagree. It's a state issue. And if the GOP keeps pounding away on abortion at the national level, we'll keep losing. Same thing with gay marriage and any other hot button that the Dems have been successful at making us play defense to.

It should be a state issue, but the supreme court of course picked it up, and so to have any say one must indirectly influence the federal supreme court via presidential elections. That's reality.

323 callahan23  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:14:23pm

re: #307 Shr_Nfr

Sadly it is true. I know some folks who would never vote for a ticket with Palin on it because of her religious views.

In other news, the Chrysler lawyer told the court today that the government will get zero money back from its earlier loan and its dip loan. Its all going to go to the UAW. Now doesn't that make you proud to be an American? All I know is that I will never, ever buy a Chrysler product again (and I have bought one in the past) for as long as I live.

As a concerned and historically educated customer what car CAN you buy then?
All German cars are out because of their involvement during nazi time, BMW doubly so because they ruined almost the whole crappy British car industry. French and Italian crap or too expensive.
Well what brand will it be then?

324 obscured by clouds  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:14:57pm

re: #313 Afton

I would say that the majority of Americans would vote for Sarah Palin because of her conservative message and her religious views would only add to that majority.

Liberals hate/fear/feel the need to destroy Palin for a reason. They know she's a threat.

325 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:15:02pm

re: #309 SixDegrees

I don't see that as reasonable at all as long as adults are involved. As far as barnyard animals, I'm just not seeing how it's the government's business.

Ultimately, the problem is: who decides what's meant by "overboard"?

I'm just not getting how this is something government should be involved in at all. It's an attempt to legislate morality, a certain loser.

Murder is a moral issue. Should there be no legislation for that?

326 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:15:24pm

re: #320 obscured by clouds

It's from the movie Caddyshack. That's the look on the fisherman's face right as he's getting ready to get run over by Rodney Dangerfield's yacht. He and I have alot in common after this last election.

LOL. I love it......

327 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:15:55pm

re: #313 Afton

I would say that the majority of Americans would vote for Sarah Palin because of her conservative message and her religious views would only add to that majority.

I guess I'm out of touch because Palin's social views scared the crap out of me and many of my moderate friends. Palin's polling outside of the base is a terrible.

328 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:16:14pm

re: #319 quickjustice

Apparently, and he has a talking pet parakeet who can swear to it! ;-)

Sometimes I refer to my cats as lil fuckers, but name calling is as far as it goes.
Sex with animals is morally repugnant to say the least, Its also a health issue.

329 Afton  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:16:33pm

re: #324 obscured by clouds

Liberals hate/fear/feel the need to destroy Palin for a reason. They know she's a threat.

right on!

330 firepilot  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:16:39pm

re: #263 Altermite

Hate to break it to you, but the religious right is a very big weapon against the right. It scares away a lot of moderates, especially those who are not evangelical christians.
Tell me, how would you feel about a political party whose platform was partially based on religious beliefs foreign to your own, and sought to enshrine those beliefs in law?

Very true, its is a good reason why Western intermountain states are trending Democratic. These areas have always been more libertarian socially, and the individual freedom in issues like sex and religion is the priority of the religious right, much more so than fiscal and economic ideas of conservatism.

And that scares a lot of people. And I cant blame them either for being concerned.

331 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:16:40pm

re: #324 obscured by clouds

Liberals hate/fear/feel the need to destroy Palin for a reason. They know she's a threat.

Fuck liberals. The very name is a lie.

332 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:16:41pm

re: #294 Afton

Let me make sure I understand you. You're saying that there is this HUGE block of voters in America, these "moderates" that believe in limited government, strong defense, protection of the Constitution, and low taxation and because the Republicans have evangelical Christians in their base, those "moderates" cast a vote for Barack Obama who was seeking BIG government, WEAK defense, DECIMATION of the Constitution and HIGH taxation? Do I have that right?

As of 2008, there are about 34 million people who identify as non-religious. There are an additional 11.8 who did not give a religion, most of whom are believed to identify as nonreligious. Even halving that number gives you 40 million nonreligious people in the US. There are almost 9 million who are adherents to a non-christian faith. Its not a dealbreaker for all of them, nor the only issue, but it is for plenty. Its a huge issue for the jewish community, for example.

333 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:16:55pm

re: #57 nikis-knight

What biological research that doesn't involve the destruction of human embryos has been blocked by any conservative?
And isn't the research that does merit a discussion?
I'd agree with him, except that abortion is so very much more important than even the rapid transformation of America to socialism to me. It is disgusting that it is allowed, and a party that doesn't take a firm stand against it will lose my respect.
Also, heterosexual marriage is the best way of producing and enculturating healthy new people, and should absolutely be prized above other unions. Of course, in a sane federalist society, that is a state issue, and it would be nice if it stayed that way. Ditto the other "sex" issues he mentions, but they are by and large valid issues for states to address, inasmuch as they intersect valid functions of government.
Likewise ID; a politicians view on evolution is irrelevant nationally; it matters to states, and governers and law-makers should let the scientific evidence that has passed the test of time alone be taught.

But if Americans are writing off the republicans because a couple side issues are being brought up when they should be left to states, when the current administration is trying to annex so much of the entire economy which government should have no role in, to be arbiters of economic success and failure, that just blind.

So you disagree with the article; you think that Repubs SHOULD campaign on sex and religion, with the Bible in one hand and puritanical prurience in the other.

/good luck with that; it seems to be working so well so far...

334 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:17:01pm

re: #310 Spare O'Lake

Your point of view is interesting. I view the GOP religious right as being the ones who are doing the "pounding".

Welp...they've been successful in pounding home the notion that there needs to be legislation to combat Roe v Wade. They are wrong as much as Roe v Wade is crappy 'constitutional' law.

335 Last Mohican  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:17:26pm

re: #318 rightymouse

It is definitely the antithesis of being 'pro-choice', but I saw and heard more disgusting things out of people last year who consider themselves to be members of the party of 'nice' and 'tolerance' and women's rights/feminism than I care to think about.

I did too. Particularly with respect their treatment of Sarah Palin. That AnneFrance character was one of them, with her insistence that Sarah Palin had no business having a job outside of the house, and should have been home taking care of her kids.

I just think it's not accurate to portray any significant percentage of the pro-choice movement as believing that women should be forced or encouraged to have an abortion against their will, under any circumstances.

I don't have a particularly strong feeling about whether abortion issues should be legislated at the federal or state level.

336 Randall Gross  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:17:35pm

re: #190 Charles

Look who immediately showed up in the comments to the Sensuous Curmudgeon's post: Richard L. Kent, Esq., The World's Angriest Creationist and Totally Obsessed LGF Stalker!

That guy is a hoot.

What's funny is there are two of them, here's the UK version
Warning: Creationist site

[Link: www.freechristianteaching.org...]

337 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:17:44pm

re: #316 pjaicomo

But I hope you can agree that believing conception marks personhood is a philosophical issue?

What about quickening? When is it conception? When the sperm enters the egg?

What isn't a philosophical question? The point is that there is no legitimate reason to pick any point between conception and birth, rather than after. Except a philosophy that values all people.
I want it outlawed at all times because I think a real person's life is at stake. If it were the case and I was wrong, I would have the inconvience of many women on my conscious, and a few deaths. However, with it legal, if we are wrong how many people's deaths do we instead have?
The difference in scope to me is staggering.

338 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:18:07pm

re: #327 avanti

I guess I'm out of touch because Palin's social views scared the crap out of me and many of my moderate friends. Palin's polling outside of the base is a terrible.

true...you are, and I don't think you are speaking metaphorically either

339 capitalist piglet  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:18:19pm

re: #327 avanti

I guess I'm out of touch because Palin's social views scared the crap out of me and many of my moderate friends. Palin's polling outside of the base is a terrible.

Which of her social views, specifically, "scared the crap out of" you?

340 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:18:26pm

re: #327 avanti

I guess I'm out of touch because Palin's social views scared the crap out of me and many of my moderate friends. Palin's polling outside of the base is a terrible.

You should be afraid. Very afraid.
Sarah, Sarah, Sarah............BOO!
/ *Contemptuous laughter*

341 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:18:28pm

re: #298 Last Mohican

Making fun of a child because of a medical problem is extremely disgusting, no matter who does it or for what reason.

Suggesting that a woman is wrong for carrying a Down syndrome baby to term, i.e. that she should have been forced to have an abortion, is the antithesis of being "pro-choice." I have never known a person who felt that way, or even seen such an argument in the vast expanse of the internet. If you know people who so argued, then they have no right to call themselves "pro-choice," and I can't imagine that they would represent any significant percentage of those who do.

I don't doubt that such people are out there, but I must say that no one I knew criticized Gov. Palin for giving birth to Trig, regardless of their opinions on choice.

I mention this because I kept hearing, keep hearing, that this was widespread, and no one I know said it. I didn't even see it on the net, although I tend to stick to fairly rational websites.

342 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:19:04pm

re: #327 avanti

I guess I'm out of touch because Palin's social views scared the crap out of me and many of my moderate friends. Palin's polling outside of the base is a terrible.

Well, there was a LOT of disinformation about her out there. Like the banning books and promoting ID stuff.

343 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:19:35pm

re: #327 avanti

I guess I'm out of touch because Palin's social views scared the crap out of me and many of my moderate friends. Palin's polling outside of the base is a terrible.

That's because moderates are nothing but closet liberals.

344 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:20:09pm

re: #343 Soona'

That's because moderates are nothing but closet liberals.

mighty dark in there I bet

345 DistantThunder  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:20:20pm

John McCain was pro-life, but he was a mess on immigration and free speech. He contributed to his own defeat with his own stupid law: McCain Feingold.

He was open borders, - and the Hispanics still chose Obama because of his promise of redistributive wealth.

People have become corrupt so many will vote for corrupt leaders that promise them the moon. Rob the rich to give to the poor - sounds good to many people.

Until we break the education monopoly and re-educate those who have been miseducated by social justice advocates, we will have an uphill battle. Most people are economic morons and many are co-dependent on government.

346 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:20:24pm

re: #201 Last Mohican

I agree, that's an exaggeration, used as a rhetorical trick. Although I have certainly seen some Republican politicians oppose education about contraception as a matter of political policy, for fear that it will encourage pre-marital relations, which they deem to be wrong.

Also, "supporting traditional marriage" doesn't really mean that. It's a misleading euphemism for "opposing gay marriage."


I updinged your comment because I appreciated you answering me. But I do take issue with your insisting on controlling the discourse on marriage. I think it is like abortion. Those who support legalized abortion say they are "pro-choice" and those who are against abortion say they are "pro-life". Each is telling the truth about how they see the issue. You may see the issue as about gay marriage, but people who say they support traditional marriage usually do support traditional marriage. They will be very concerned about children born out of wedlock and very concerned about divorce, etc. For them (including me) it is a constellation of issues around marriage as the structure for child-rearing as the basic building block of society.

re: #210 FurryOldGuyJeans

Which hides the hatred against homosexuals because gays don't live like the rest of decent society as defined by the far-right SoCon fringe.


The opinion polls show that the support for traditional marriage is not a "far-right fringe" but the majority of people in the USA. And even in California, as demonstrated by the election in November where Prop 8 was passed.

347 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:20:30pm

re: #337 nikis-knight

What isn't a philosophical question? The point is that there is no legitimate reason to pick any point between conception and birth, rather than after. Except a philosophy that values all people.
I want it outlawed at all times because I think a real person's life is at stake. If it were the case and I was wrong, I would have the inconvience of many women on my conscious, and a few deaths. However, with it legal, if we are wrong how many people's deaths do we instead have?
The difference in scope to me is staggering.

So then would miscarriage be grounds for manslaughter?

348 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:20:43pm

re: #324 obscured by clouds

Liberals hate/fear/feel the need to destroy Palin for a reason. They know she's a threat.

I hear that all the time, but if you truly believe it, nominate her, it'll be the final wake up call for the GOP's wrong direction. As much as you don't get the appeal of BHO to the middle and left, you overestimate Palin's appeal outside of the base.

349 obscured by clouds  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:21:18pm

re: #307 Shr_Nfr

Sadly it is true. I know some folks who would never vote for a ticket with Palin on it because of her religious views.

What are these religious views you speak of?

350 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:21:36pm

re: #333 Salamantis

So you disagree with the article; you think that Repubs SHOULD campaign on sex and religion, with the Bible in one hand and puritanical prurience in the other.

/good luck with that; it seems to be working so well so far...


It's easy to mischaracterize someone like that. I think I was plenty clear though.
If not killing babies is running on sex and religion, yes, I very much want to run on that.

Anyway, good night.

351 alegrias  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:21:58pm

Polls have closed in Alexandria, Virginia for mayor & city council.

Hope one, two, three or the 4 Republicans broke through the ALL DEMOCRAT incumbent ceiling in this one party state.

Two of the Repubs had to run as independents because of the Hatch Act, which good little republicans abide by.

Meanswhile, ACORN unionistas (now tax-payer supported), were all out doing their democrat ward heeling.

All four Republicans were labeled in a concerted democrat talking point campaign as offering "tired Bush Republican solutions" such as cutting taxes.

352 DistantThunder  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:22:03pm

re: #313 Afton

I would say that the majority of Americans would vote for Sarah Palin because of her conservative message and her religious views would only add to that majority.

I agree. Strong defense, fiscal conservative. Can identify the real enemy. Head and shoulders above most conservatives.

353 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:22:28pm

re: #347 pjaicomo

So then would miscarriage be grounds for manslaughter?

What? The same way that being hit by lightning is suicide, I guess.

?

354 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:22:29pm

re: #342 nikis-knight

Well, there was a LOT of disinformation about her out there. Like the banning books and promoting ID stuff.

And "I can see Russia from my house"......WHICH WAS SAID BY A HALF-WIT COMEDIENNE. . But people thought it was Sarah and they were afraid. Very afraid.
Ya know what I'm 'fraid of? The stupid ass ignorant American voter.

355 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:22:51pm

re: #348 avanti

I hear that all the time, but if you truly believe it, nominate her, it'll be the final wake up call for the GOP's wrong direction. As much as you don't get the appeal of BHO to the middle and left, you overestimate Palin's appeal outside of the base.

we get BOs appeal...it's been explained to you over and over....quit insulting me

356 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:23:03pm

re: #322 nikis-knight

It should be a state issue, but the supreme court of course picked it up, and so to have any say one must indirectly influence the federal supreme court via presidential elections. That's reality.

I doubt Roe v Wade is going away. And it's silly that the GOP should spend this kind of time and energy trying to make it go away even if it's crappy law and they want their OWN law in place to make it illegal at the federal level.

Using the courts to legislate morality like this is a very bad idea.

357 quickjustice  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:23:06pm

re: #327 avanti

Young, liberal women here in Manhattan tell me that Palin is extremely charismatic, because she's powerful, self-made, self-reliant, and self-confident. She also has a manly husband, mostly healthy children, and enough family dysfunction to seem real. They also say that they disagree with her political positions, but that she's extremely interesting.

I'm intrigued by your use of the word "afraid" to describe her social views. She's made it clear many times over that her personal religious beliefs will not affect her policy-making. We've had many devout Presidents. Are you suggesting that religious belief disqualifies anyone from holding public office?

358 Afton  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:23:12pm

re: #327 avanti

I guess I'm out of touch because Palin's social views scared the crap out of me and many of my moderate friends. Palin's polling outside of the base is a terrible.

I don't think you're out of touch, avanti - i'm a Conservative and you're a moderate. I think that best explains it. The question becomes...if you run a liberal Republican you pick up "X" moderate votes and you lose "Y" conservative votes. I'm only saying that X does not equal Y , and it ain't even close. At the same time, I think most Americans end up voting one way or the other because of three main issues: Economy, National Defense and Leadership - in 2008 the Republicans lost, in my view, because the Democrats had a message regarding the economy and the Republicans did not AND the Democrats organized via ACORN and MoveOn that completely overwhelmed a conservative base that was still pissing and moaning over their choice of a too moderate candidate.

359 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:23:43pm

re: #354 LGoPs

"Ya know what I'm 'fraid of? The stupid ass ignorant American voter.'

Amen.

360 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:23:49pm

Right wing extremist update....
Arson attack on an Islamic centre

An Islamic centre in Bedfordshire has been gutted by fire in what police believe was an arson attack.

No-one was injured in the blaze, which started just after midnight at the centre in Bury Park Road, Luton.

A police spokesman said there was "considerable damage" and the road was likely to remain closed while forensic teams investigated the cause.

He warned of rush-hour delays and said police were looking at links to a BMW car found burnt out in Elmore Road.

Insp Martin Peters said: "It appears an accelerant was used and our immediate priorities include who started this fire and why, and making motorists aware."

Luton is coincidentally the home of BNP blogger and activist "Lionheart". He staged an illegal protest/mini-riot there last moth. Crazy Pam posted the video praising it as the beginning of the uprising against Islam.

361 alegrias  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:23:55pm

re: #324 obscured by clouds

Liberals hate/fear/feel the need to destroy Palin for a reason. They know she's a threat.

* * * *
Unlike Caroline Kennedy the once (and future?) senatorial candidate for the Kennedy Senate Seat.

Caroline Kennedy wasn't even fit for fluffy ambassador to the Vatican!

So glad the Pope just said no.

362 pjaicomo  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:24:03pm

re: #353 nikis-knight

What? The same way that being hit by lightning is suicide, I guess.

?

Alright, then would you be convicting women who sought illegal abortions of first degree murder? Along with the doctors?

363 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:24:43pm

re: #348 avanti

I hear that all the time, but if you truly believe it, nominate her, it'll be the final wake up call for the GOP's wrong direction. As much as you don't get the appeal of BHO to the middle and left, you overestimate Palin's appeal outside of the base.

The GOP should hire you as a consultant. And then do the exact opposite of what you recommend.

364 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:24:55pm

re: #356 rightymouse

I doubt Roe v Wade is going away. And it's silly that the GOP should spend this kind of time and energy trying to make it go away even if it's crappy law and they want their OWN law in place to make it illegal at the federal level.

Using the courts to legislate morality like this is a very bad idea.


What kind of energy? Adding a line in a platform? I haven't seen that much energy expended.

365 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:25:14pm

re: #314 Spare O'Lake

Do you want to buy cheese from THAT goat?

Hell, no. In fact, I don't want to be anywhere near the farmer, either. But what he does in the privacy of his own...paddock...is his business, not mine.

366 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:25:59pm

re: #91 nikis-knight

Therefore it should be legal in all cases? As current law states? Absurd.
I'm willing to be practical, and go bit by bit where there is support.
But, as far as justice goes, it is worse to kill someone for a crime that they didn't commit than to prevent a women to endure a pregnancy she doesn't want.

Once again, my abortion position:

1) legal in the first trimester.

2) allowed in cases of rape or incest until fetal viability (middle of second trimester).

3) only permitted after fetal viability when there is a significant and genuine danger to the life of the mother, or a major hazard to her health (brain damage, paralysis, etc.).

367 Afton  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:26:04pm

re: #332 Altermite

As of 2008, there are about 34 million people who identify as non-religious. There are an additional 11.8 who did not give a religion, most of whom are believed to identify as nonreligious. Even halving that number gives you 40 million nonreligious people in the US. There are almost 9 million who are adherents to a non-christian faith. Its not a dealbreaker for all of them, nor the only issue, but it is for plenty. Its a huge issue for the jewish community, for example.

80% of Americans are Christians.

368 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:26:40pm

re: #345 DistantThunder

John McCain was pro-life, but he was a mess on immigration and free speech. He contributed to his own defeat with his own stupid law: McCain Feingold.

He was open borders, - and the Hispanics still chose Obama because of his promise of redistributive wealth.

People have become corrupt so many will vote for corrupt leaders that promise them the moon. Rob the rich to give to the poor - sounds good to many people.

Until we break the education monopoly and re-educate those who have been miseducated by social justice advocates, we will have an uphill battle. Most people are economic morons and many are co-dependent on government.

There it is in a nutshell. NEA driven public school miseducation is at the heart of O-fawning and the leaping towards socialism.

369 DistantThunder  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:26:51pm

Palin's friends scare people? But Obama's politcal partners, Blago, Rezko, Ayers - don't horrify his supporters? No they don't.

370 alegrias  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:26:58pm

re: #354 LGoPs

And "I can see Russia from my house"......WHICH WAS SAID BY A HALF-WIT COMEDIENNE. . But people thought it was Sarah and they were afraid. Very afraid.
Ya know what I'm 'fraid of? The stupid ass ignorant American voter.

* * * *
Let's not be disingenuous.
Palin didn't abort her baby, and was a fertile, fabulous attractive mother--unashamed to procreate or deal with the evolutionary programmed outcome of sex.
That's threatening to many Americans.

371 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:27:00pm

re: #360 Killgore Trout

It seems there have been a couple recent firebombings of mosques....
Mosque 'firebomb' revenge attacker given conditional discharge
This appears to be a previous attack, not the one mentioned above.

372 callahan23  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:27:22pm

re: #354 LGoPs

And "I can see Russia from my house"......WHICH WAS SAID BY A HALF-WIT COMEDIENNE. . But people thought it was Sarah and they were afraid. Very afraid.
Ya know what I'm 'fraid of? The stupid ass ignorant American voter.

Be afraid, be very afraid.
In Europe about 60% of the people are certain that the state of Israel is the biggest danger to world peace and stability. Doh
"The stupid ass ignorant American EU voter." Be afraid, be very afraid, Israel.
A big hoik 'n spit to them 'old Europe' fuggers.

373 eon  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:27:48pm

re: #360 Killgore Trout

Right wing extremist update....
Arson attack on an Islamic centre

Luton is coincidentally the home of BNP blogger and activist "Lionheart". He staged an illegal protest/mini-riot there last moth. Crazy Pam posted the video praising it as the beginning of the uprising against Islam.

More likely the beginning of "Crash" Gordon finally biting the bullet and getting a Home Secretary who realizes that issuing citations to thugs isn't going to convince them to be less thuggish. No matter what their reason for being a$$holes in the first place.

And with that, I must be going.

Good night, Lizards.

Sleep tight.

cheers

eon

374 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:28:01pm

re: #369 DistantThunder

Palin's friends scare people? But Obama's politcal partners, Blago, Rezko, Ayers - don't horrify his supporters? No they don't.

it's a waste of time...fun tho once in a while

375 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:28:13pm

re: #327 avanti

I guess I'm out of touch because Palin's social views scared the crap out of me and many of my moderate friends. Palin's polling outside of the base is a terrible.

I look at how she practices it in her real life. Frankly she seems to be quite moderate as a mother and how she raises her kids and has a nice family. She admitted to having smoked pot at a certain point in her life. She signed a law allowing benefits for same sex couples in the state of Alaska. No she's not a liberal by any means but I just never understood why people saw her as an extremist.

376 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:28:20pm

re: #372 callahan23

Be afraid, be very afraid.
In Europe about 60% of the people are certain that the state of Israel is the biggest danger to world peace and stability. Doh
"The stupid ass ignorant American EU voter." Be afraid, be very afraid, Israel.
A big hoik 'n spit to them 'old Europe' fuggers.

I know for a fact you were my 4000th upding.

377 alegrias  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:28:26pm

re: #363 LGoPs

The GOP should hire you as a consultant. And then do the exact opposite of what you recommend.

* * * *
Avanti still thinks Joe Biden makes a great Vice President.

378 Digital Display  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:29:05pm

re: #369 DistantThunder

Palin's friends scare people? But Obama's politcal partners, Blago, Rezko, Ayers - don't horrify his supporters? No they don't.

I just know I never want to piss off Billy Ayers....

379 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:29:14pm

re: #362 pjaicomo

Alright, then would you be convicting women who sought illegal abortions of first degree murder? Along with the doctors?


The exact details of the punishments can worked out by legislatures. I would make both of those illegal in any nation I ran, at least without significant risk to the mother, and I am ambivalent about rape and brain-dead children. (I mean, abortions in those cases; of course I am extremly against rape and birth defects. but I would not push to exclude exceptions to rape, even though it is sad that the child should die for the father's crime.)
I think abortion doctors should lose medical liscenses and be jailed for a time, women who go to them fined something that makes birth and adoption a better choice in whatever calcuation that they make.

380 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:29:15pm

re: #360 Killgore Trout

Right wing extremist update....
Arson attack on an Islamic centre

Luton is coincidentally the home of BNP blogger and activist "Lionheart". He staged an illegal protest/mini-riot there last moth. Crazy Pam posted the video praising it as the beginning of the uprising against Islam.

Ugh.

As repugnant as that is, it's best to wait for actual facts on who started the fire. Arson seems to be a certainty, but that still leaves open the question of who is responsible.

It probably won't take too long to figure this out. Arsonists of this caliber aren't typically the brightest bulbs in the string.

381 callahan23  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:29:21pm

re: #376 DEZes

I know for a fact you were my 4000th upding.

How on Earth could you know that?

382 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:29:30pm

re: #375 Gus 802

I look at how she practices it in her real life. Frankly she seems to be quite moderate as a mother and how she raises her kids and has a nice family. She admitted to having smoked pot at a certain point in her life. She signed a law allowing benefits for same sex couples in the state of Alaska. No she's not a liberal by any means but I just never understood why people saw her as an extremist.

Honestly? In retrospect, it might not have been her policies as stated, but the antics that occured at some of her rallies.

383 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:30:13pm

re: #339 capitalist piglet

Which of her social views, specifically, "scared the crap out of" you?

Her extreme religious views. The concept that if I don't have a clue as to what to do, Jesus will make it ok. i.e. the quote "God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that."
I may be a agnostic, but I'd think God does not take a position on gas lines, She's a creationist, once had the demons driven out of her body and the rest.

384 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:30:16pm

re: #375 Gus 802

I look at how she practices it in her real life. Frankly she seems to be quite moderate as a mother and how she raises her kids and has a nice family. She admitted to having smoked pot at a certain point in her life. She signed a law allowing benefits for same sex couples in the state of Alaska. No she's not a liberal by any means but I just never understood why people saw her as an extremist.

treat you political adversary as a threatening, dangerous crackpot...isolate, deceive then attack/destroy....right outa the Book

385 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:30:23pm

re: #378 HoosierHoops

I just know I never want to piss off Billy Ayers....

Why, he runs to cops now when he feels threatened.
Oh sweet irony.

386 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:30:27pm

re: #382 Altermite

Honestly? In retrospect, it might not have been her policies as stated, but the antics that occured at some of her rallies.

Probably that and the hunting aspect. They sure made a big deal about that during the campaign.

387 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:30:31pm

re: #366 Salamantis

Once again, my abortion position:

1) legal in the first trimester.

2) allowed in cases of rape or incest until fetal viability (middle of second trimester).

3) only permitted after fetal viability when there is a significant and genuine danger to the life of the mother, or a major hazard to her health (brain damage, paralysis, etc.).

To my understanding, that would be a step up from current law. But I can think of zero reason for the time (trimester) differential.

388 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:30:42pm

re: #335 Last Mohican

I did too. Particularly with respect their treatment of Sarah Palin. That AnneFrance character was one of them, with her insistence that Sarah Palin had no business having a job outside of the house, and should have been home taking care of her kids.

I just think it's not accurate to portray any significant percentage of the pro-choice movement as believing that women should be forced or encouraged to have an abortion against their will, under any circumstances.

I don't have a particularly strong feeling about whether abortion issues should be legislated at the federal or state level.

I dislike the terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'. They've become political footballs and all the human choices that people make every day of their lives get kicked to the curb with all the hollering from both sides.

The Supreme Court made the Federal case via Roe v Wade. Would you like it if it went the other way at the Federal level? I wouldn't.

389 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:30:48pm

re: #381 callahan23

How on Earth could you know that?

I was watching closely. ;)

390 alegrias  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:31:09pm

re: #383 avanti

Her extreme religious views. The concept that if I don't have a clue as to what to do, Jesus will make it ok. i.e. the quote "God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that."
I may be a agnostic, but I'd think God does not take a position on gas lines, She's a creationist, once had the demons driven out of her body and the rest.

* * * * *
You've been "possessed" by democrat talking points and you're scaring the Be-Biden out of me.

391 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:31:36pm

re: #383 avanti

Her extreme religious views. The concept that if I don't have a clue as to what to do, Jesus will make it ok. i.e. the quote "God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that."
I may be a agnostic, but I'd think God does not take a position on gas lines, She's a creationist, once had the demons driven out of her body and the rest.

do you suck your thumb while you type?

392 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:31:51pm

re: #383 avanti

Her extreme religious views. The concept that if I don't have a clue as to what to do, Jesus will make it ok. i.e. the quote "God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that."
I may be a agnostic, but I'd think God does not take a position on gas lines, She's a creationist, once had the demons driven out of her body and the rest.


Would you prefer a candidate still possessed? Avanti for Satan's puppets, huh?

/SARC

393 Digital Display  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:31:56pm

re: #385 DEZes

Why, he runs to cops now when he feels threatened.
Oh sweet irony.

LOL
Daddy always said never piss off somebody from Chicago that likes pipe bombs..

394 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:32:16pm

re: #391 albusteve

do you suck your thumb while you type?

ROFLMAO!

Thats gonna make the top 10.

395 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:32:18pm

re: #364 nikis-knight

What kind of energy? Adding a line in a platform? I haven't seen that much energy expended.

We must hang out in different places. :)

396 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:32:35pm

I think our problem is that we combine a stupid school system with a government that would probably regulate your toenail clippings if they could get away with it. This is the exact reverse of what we should have; a population well-educated in history and civics combined with laws that cover the necessities.*

397 DistantThunder  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:32:47pm

re: #378 HoosierHoops

I just know I never want to piss off Billy Ayers....

He's offended when people call him a terrorist. Speaking of terror, any good updates on the airforce one flyover of NYC? People were taken to hospitals, for asthma attacks, injuries sustained in falls down stairways while evacuating, pregnant women were hospitalized for stress. I hope someone does a book.

398 HDrepub  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:33:01pm

re: #378 HoosierHoops

I just know I never want to piss off Billy Ayers....

I would welcome Billy Ayers to mess with me.

399 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:33:14pm

re: #372 callahan23

Be afraid, be very afraid.
In Europe about 60% of the people are certain that the state of Israel is the biggest danger to world peace and stability. Doh
"The stupid ass ignorant American EU voter." Be afraid, be very afraid, Israel.
A big hoik 'n spit to them 'old Europe' fuggers.

Europe has never liked Jews.

400 Dad O' Blondes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:33:30pm

An astonishingly accurate potrayal and, I hope, a moment of clarity.

10 years ago being a Republican was a badge of honor. Today, it is a ticket to the dunce corner. And it is because Republican politicians, and party members, have failed utterly to frame the debate. And have thus been relegated to the low road, and cast as boobs and kooks.

Leadership, statesmanship, stewardship are missing. As we have mortgaged our grandchildren's future with a national debt that's frankly uncountable.

Change!

.

401 nyc redneck  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:33:46pm

re: #327 avanti

I guess I'm out of touch because Palin's social views scared the crap out of me and many of my moderate friends. Palin's polling outside of the base is a terrible.

well, nancy pelosi scares the "crap" out of me. in all ways, the face, the crazy blinking, the fcking socialist ideas, the incoherence, the arrogance, the harm she is doing to this country. her phony "for the children" b.s. the demands for the jet to fly back and forth to her estate in ca. in the face of her DEEP concern for the environment.
palin is being attacked because she is a threat to libs like pelosi.
sarah palin, is a reagan conservative who can articulate her point of view.
she excelled at that during the campaign and it wasn't just the base who inspired by her.
that's what needs to happen and the left and the msm know it.
this is why sarah is being maligned.
they are trying to intimidate people who solidly represent the sound principles
of the gop.
if she was as bad as they say she is, they wouldn't even mention her name.

402 callahan23  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:33:52pm

re: #391 albusteve

do you suck your thumb while you type?

Bwahahaaaa.
Now I need to clean my screen!

403 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:34:20pm

re: #397 DistantThunder

He's offended when people call him a terrorist. Speaking of terror, any good updates on the airforce one flyover of NYC? People were taken to hospitals, for asthma attacks, injuries sustained in falls down stairways while evacuating, pregnant women were hospitalized for stress. I hope someone does a book.

sue the fucker out of office...there's always a first time

404 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:34:29pm

re: #380 SixDegrees

There was the imam in Australia who was recently caught vandalizing his own mosque so anything is possible.

405 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:34:32pm

re: #357 quickjustice

Young, liberal women here in Manhattan tell me that Palin is extremely charismatic, because she's powerful, self-made, self-reliant, and self-confident. She also has a manly husband, mostly healthy children, and enough family dysfunction to seem real. They also say that they disagree with her political positions, but that she's extremely interesting.

I'm intrigued by your use of the word "afraid" to describe her social views. She's made it clear many times over that her personal religious beliefs will not affect her policy-making. We've had many devout Presidents. Are you suggesting that religious belief disqualifies anyone from holding public office?

I have no dog in this fight, but Palin is the exact opposite direction for the party then the letter suggests. If young liberal woman like her, you have a slam dunk candidate though.

406 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:34:33pm

re: #378 HoosierHoops

I just know I never want to piss off Billy Ayers....

I'd like to piss on Billy Ayers.

407 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:34:40pm

re: #395 rightymouse

We must hang out in different places. :)

Okay, I was down-playing it a bit. There is a parental notification law that comes up in california and is always voted down. Bush did some good things that Obama has reversed, like the Mexico city policy. There are usually a question to two about it in pres. primaries. But I don't see that much actually done. I hear a lot more about energy policy or scores of other important things than this.

PS. you have a quote avatar, and I really do need to go...

408 Afton  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:34:42pm

re: #360 Killgore Trout

Right wing extremist update....
Arson attack on an Islamic centre


Luton is coincidentally the home of BNP blogger and activist "Lionheart". He staged an illegal protest/mini-riot there last moth. Crazy Pam posted the video praising it as the beginning of the uprising against Islam.

Luton is also coincidentally the scene of the Islamist protest against a parade honoring the return of British troops from either Afghanistan or Iraq (can't remember which). I would say that the number of Brits who took offense to that attack on their troops probably included Labour Party supporters, Conservative Party supporters, Liberal Democrat Party supporters along with BNP supporters...so I'm not sure you can say who was responsible for this arson attack.

409 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:34:59pm

re: #383 avanti

Her extreme religious views. The concept that if I don't have a clue as to what to do, Jesus will make it ok. i.e. the quote "God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that."
I may be a agnostic, but I'd think God does not take a position on gas lines, She's a creationist, once had the demons driven out of her body and the rest.

How is that extreme. Sometimes religious people will use religious language in day to day conversation as a "figure of speech."

What about Obama:

‘‘My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the Lord’s work,’’ Obama told Iowa UCC members, according to a story in Fort Dodge's Messenger newspaper

410 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:35:02pm

re: #134 Simply Me

The Curmudgeon wrote:


This seems like an exageration. Have pe-marital relations, contraception and masturbation been mentioned in the party platform?

I think supporting traditional marriage and opposition to abortion are substantive issues. Lumping them in with masturbation seems like a rhetorical trick to trivialize them.

And now for my position on gay marriage:

Permit gay civil unions, with all of the same legal rights and privileges that heterosexual marriage grants (tax status, mutual inheritance rights, spousal medical decisionmaking authority, spousal employment benefits, spousal insurance benefits) while reserving the traditional term of marriage for heterosexual unions.

411 Killian Bundy  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:35:09pm

/never gets old

412 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:35:53pm

re: #401 nyc redneck

well, nancy pelosi scares the "crap" out of me. in all ways, the face, the crazy blinking, the fcking socialist ideas, the incoherence, the arrogance, the harm she is doing to this country. her phony "for the children" b.s. the demands for the jet to fly back and forth to her estate in ca. in the face of her DEEP concern for the environment.
palin is being attacked because she is a threat to libs like pelosi.
sarah palin, is a reagan conservative who can articulate her point of view.
she excelled at that during the campaign and it wasn't just the base who inspired by her.
that's what needs to happen and the left and the msm know it.
this is why sarah is being maligned.
they are trying to intimidate people who solidly represent the sound principles
of the gop.
if she was as bad as they say she is, they wouldn't even mention her name.

Well said. Wish I had more dings for you.

413 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:36:23pm

re: #412 LGoPs

Well said. Wish I had more dings for you.

I can help with that.

414 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:36:41pm

re: #390 alegrias

* * * * *
You've been "possessed" by democrat talking points and you're scaring the Be-Biden out of me.

OK, I'll drop out of the Palin comments. Apparently I'm the rare voter that is not a fan, at least on here.

415 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:36:50pm

One of Lionheart's friends is already pushing the conspiracy theory that it's a set up to frame Lionheart.....
Luton, England Islamic Centre Fire Bombed; Lionheart's Hometown

This is frightening to me because I think there could be a scenario that attempts to implicate Lionheart and others in the fire bombing. This is just a guess on my part. I have no inside information. I have not corresponded with Lionheart. I just read. You also can read through Lionheart's archives to get the complete picture. You can glimpse some of the problem in the video below, as you see Muslims protesting the return of hometown military heros. Another part of the story continues to be that Luton police will not allow Brits to peacefully gather and march in protest to the Muslim agitators. Muslims are granted a license, Brits are not. God help Great Britain.

Whatever the situation or the realities of the police investigation, I am reminded that Lionheart and Luton needs to remain in my prayers. Please join me.

416 nikis-knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:37:32pm

re: #410 Salamantis

And now for my position on gay marriage:

Permit gay civil unions, with all of the same legal rights and privileges that heterosexual marriage grants (tax status, mutual inheritance rights, spousal medical decisionmaking authority, spousal employment benefits, spousal insurance benefits) while reserving the traditional term of marriage for heterosexual unions.


Are civil unions homosexual only and restricted to two non-related people, and if so, why?

417 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:37:33pm

re: #410 Salamantis

And now for my position on gay marriage:

Permit gay civil unions, with all of the same legal rights and privileges that heterosexual marriage grants (tax status, mutual inheritance rights, spousal medical decisionmaking authority, spousal employment benefits, spousal insurance benefits) while reserving the traditional term of marriage for heterosexual unions.

too simple....gays want to be MARRIED, not unionized...they want heir selfish issue to go to the USSC

418 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:37:38pm

re: #398 HDrepub

I would welcome Billy Ayers to mess with me.

Yeah, little Billy. Just try to fuck with me.

419 yochanan  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:37:41pm

and what is the democrats pushing abortion on demand and gay marriage? they are no more correct than the religious right.

420 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:37:59pm

re: #398 HDrepub

I would welcome Billy Ayers to mess with me.

I'd hold your coat.

421 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:38:09pm

re: #411 Killian Bundy

[Video]

/never gets old

which one was Avanti?

422 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:38:33pm

re: #414 avanti

OK, I'll drop out of the Palin comments. Apparently I'm the rare voter that is not a fan, at least on here.

Its not about being a fan, its not American idol.
Thats one of the reasons we have a media star sitting in the Whitehouse now.

423 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:39:24pm

re: #422 DEZes

Its not about being a fan, its not American idol.
Thats one of the reasons we have a media star sitting in the Whitehouse now.

nice kick in the ass....they never get it....ever

424 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:39:35pm

re: #367 Afton

80% of Americans are Christians.

That simply hasn't been true for about 15 years now.

425 obscured by clouds  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:39:44pm

re: #348 avanti

I hear that all the time, but if you truly believe it, nominate her, it'll be the final wake up call for the GOP's wrong direction. As much as you don't get the appeal of BHO to the middle and left, you overestimate Palin's appeal outside of the base.

So I guess what we need is another McCain to reign in the moderates, huh? Unlike McCain, Palin is a conservative. Obama is a radical leftist. If your "moderate" friends vote for radical leftism over conservatism, good riddance. They deserve what they get in spades.

And again...what are Palin's social positions that you stand so opposed to?

426 Last Mohican  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:40:03pm

re: #346 Simply Me

I do take issue with your insisting on controlling the discourse on marriage. I think it is like abortion. Those who support legalized abortion say they are "pro-choice" and those who are against abortion say they are "pro-life". Each is telling the truth about how they see the issue.

I'll accept that. It's a good point.

You may see the issue as about gay marriage, but people who say they support traditional marriage usually do support traditional marriage. They will be very concerned about children born out of wedlock and very concerned about divorce, etc. For them (including me) it is a constellation of issues around marriage as the structure for child-rearing as the basic building block of society.

I agree with you that a great many Americans, maybe even a substantial majority, oppose gay marriage. And I agree that many of those who do oppose gay marriage are "pro-marriage," in that they believe that people marriage is an important and generally beneficial institution, that children should ideally be raised by a married couple, etc.

But it's misleading to say "support traditional marriage" when what you mean is "oppose gay marriage." I personally support traditional marriage, and, if you want to call gay marriage nontraditional, I support that kind of nontraditional marriage too.

427 debutaunt  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:40:06pm

re: #397 DistantThunder

He's offended when people call him a terrorist. Speaking of terror, any good updates on the airforce one flyover of NYC? People were taken to hospitals, for asthma attacks, injuries sustained in falls down stairways while evacuating, pregnant women were hospitalized for stress. I hope someone does a book.

I wonder how much business productivity was affected.

428 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:40:35pm

What's with the fake blogs that just consist of random keywords? They're obviously automatically generated but why?

429 nyc redneck  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:40:41pm

re: #369 DistantThunder

Palin's friends scare people? But Obama's politcal partners, Blago, Rezko, Ayers - don't horrify his supporters? No they don't.

sarah palin's friends don't scare anyone who wants to preserve and protect america and the foundations of this country.

o has no friends except crooks, commies and run of the mill thugs like rev wright.
none show respect for america.

430 DistantThunder  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:41:24pm

I couldn't care less about gay marriage except that it tends to have unintended consequences. In England, parents were threatened with arrest if they took their kindergardteners out of school during the lesson on gay marriage and relationships.
They asked: Shouldn't we have the option to opt out? They were told no, because it's legal. They were threatened with arrest if they took the children out.

MA parents were also told they couldn't opt out because gay marriage as legal.

A study showed that where gay marriages was legalized, religious liberties suffered as a result. That's the problem.

431 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:41:48pm

re: #409 Gus 802

I would have no problem with anyone believing the Bible's admonition to do good works. Believing God wants a pipeline, so get behind it, is another matter.

432 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:41:55pm

Yet another "religious" speech by Obama:

And in time, I came to see my faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work. There are millions of Americans who share a similar view of their faith, who feel they have an obligation to help others.

There are several others in which Obama invoked "God's will" and he does in speeches regarding society and culture. Yet when Sarah Palin invoked it regarding a gas pipeline she's cast as an extremist.

433 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:42:28pm

re: #422 DEZes

Its not about being a fan, its not American idol.
Thats one of the reasons we have a media star sitting in the Whitehouse now.

Well said DEZ....
:)

434 Egregious Philbin  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:42:33pm

Amen to this letter! (er...Praise Xenu!)

This party is killing itself by letting the snake waving thought luddites run the show.

Religionists...go back to church and help your own, we don't need your outreach, your anti science agenda and your dumbing down of the party.

Republicans, I want money, I want to make money, save money and spend less money, I want the liberty to succeed and prosper, I want the nation protected from our enemies. Nothing more. I don't give a rat's ass if two men want to marry, its not my business and it doesn't hurt me. Let me make money and lets teach real science to our kids.

435 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:42:34pm

re: #307 Shr_Nfr


In other news, the Chrysler lawyer told the court today that the government will get zero money back from its earlier loan and its dip loan. Its all going to go to the UAW.

Um - as I understand things, it isn't up to Chrysler to dictate where any of it's assets go now that they're in bankruptcy court. It's up to the judge in charge of the case.

I had heard that Chrysler wouldn't be paying back any of the government loan money. That isn't surprising, since it just isn't up to them anymore to make such decisions.

436 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:42:41pm

re: #428 Killgore Trout

What's with the fake blogs that just consist of random keywords? They're obviously automatically generated but why?

/If you twist your tin foil hat seven degrees NW, and then eight degrees, six minutes SE, you'll understand.

437 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:42:49pm

re: #431 avanti

I would have no problem with anyone believing the Bible's admonition to do good works. Believing God wants a pipeline, so get behind it, is another matter.


therefore you and BO know gods will?

438 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:42:55pm

re: #423 albusteve

nice kick in the ass....they never get it....ever

I have a nutty sister, she voted for Clinton because she thought he was cute.
I love her dearly regardless.
But voting on looks or good feelings is bad politics.

439 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:43:01pm

re: #431 avanti

I would have no problem with anyone believing the Bible's admonition to do good works. Believing God wants a pipeline, so get behind it, is another matter.

God wants you to get a clue. Can you believe that?

440 Last Mohican  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:43:14pm

re: #410 Salamantis

And now for my position on gay marriage:

That, by the way, was McCain's position on gay marriage. And it was also Obama's position. I.e. their positions were identical.

441 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:43:50pm

re: #431 avanti

I would have no problem with anyone believing the Bible's admonition to do good works. Believing God wants a pipeline, so get behind it, is another matter.

So Obama can invoke "God's will" for "the community" as noted in my #432 yet Palin cannot do the same for a gas pipeline. Let me see. How many people did that project employ? How many families did it feed and how much of its energy did we garner from it for the purposeful use of "the community?"

442 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:43:52pm

re: #404 Killgore Trout

There was the imam in Australia who was recently caught vandalizing his own mosque so anything is possible.

Yes; that story came to mind.

Best to wait for facts.

443 HDrepub  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:43:52pm

I can't get over those people who strain at gnats and swallow camels. Those who say they are afraid of someone like Palin's religious views, but are not scared of Obama's church of gawddam America he attended for twenty years, and who only threw the madman preacher under the bus when it was politically necessary. What a crock of unadulterated crap! They're going to have to do better than that.

444 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:44:07pm

re: #417 albusteve

too simple....gays want to be MARRIED, not unionized...they want heir selfish issue to go to the USSC

Yes. Getting married is very selfish.
///

445 Afton  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:44:10pm

re: #424 Altermite

80% of Americans are Christians

That simply hasn't been true for about 15 years now.

"The percentage of Americans who identify with some form of a Christian religion has been dropping in recent decades, and now stands at 77%, according to an aggregate of Gallup Polls conducted in 2008."

Gallup Poll...

446 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:44:36pm

re: #407 nikis-knight

Okay, I was down-playing it a bit. There is a parental notification law that comes up in california and is always voted down. Bush did some good things that Obama has reversed, like the Mexico city policy. There are usually a question to two about it in pres. primaries. But I don't see that much actually done. I hear a lot more about energy policy or scores of other important things than this.

PS. you have a quote avatar, and I really do need to go...


It's two of the hot-buttons the Dems consistently go after. Those and minority 'rights'. We don't have a coherent energy policy either.

What's a quote avatar? :)

447 alegrias  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:44:58pm

re: #414 avanti

OK, I'll drop out of the Palin comments. Apparently I'm the rare voter that is not a fan, at least on here.

* * * *
President Obama got his extremist Pastor of 20 years, the infamous Reverend Wright, government grants for his radical church, something Gov. Sarah Palin NEVER did. Talk about "scary". Talk about cheesy.

IF you were honest, you would admit as to the SEPARATION of church and state, Gov. Palin practiced what she "preached", unlike Obama who forced all of us to pay for his church's pet projects.

448 callahan23  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:44:59pm

Good night my Lizard friends. Tomorrow, I'll be back. I promise.

449 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:45:17pm

re: #430 DistantThunder

A study showed that where gay marriages was legalized, religious liberties suffered as a result. That's the problem.

I'd be interested in reading those studies if you have a link.

450 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:45:24pm

re: #448 callahan23

Good night my Lizard friends. Tomorrow, I'll be back. I promise.

Later.

451 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:46:01pm

re: #444 Altermite

Yes. Getting married is very selfish.
///

it was for all three of my wives....used me as a sex object

452 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:46:13pm

re: #438 DEZes

I have a nutty sister, she voted for Clinton because she thought he was cute.
I love her dearly regardless.
But voting on looks or good feelings is bad politics.

Sad part about it is, that's exactly what happened on a large scale in '08.

453 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:46:42pm

re: #448 callahan23

Good night my Lizard friends. Tomorrow, I'll be back. I promise.

Sleep well'
Before you go, I have been meaning to ask, about where are you in the world?

454 LGoPs  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:46:52pm

re: #432 Gus 802

Yet another "religious" speech by Obama:


There are several others in which Obama invoked "God's will" and he does in speeches regarding society and culture. Yet when Sarah Palin invoked it regarding a gas pipeline she's cast as an extremist.

And what is the common denominator here? The MFM. They set the tone and the details of the debate. They are the enemy.

455 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:47:03pm

re: #437 albusteve

therefore you and BO know gods will?

I sure don't, but lot's of stuff in the Bible just makes good sense. I don't see a problem with helping your fellow man even if it's faith inspired. I have no idea if there is a God or if he/she/they care, but good works are OK with me.

456 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:47:16pm

re: #432 Gus 802

Yet another "religious" speech by Obama:


There are several others in which Obama invoked "God's will" and he does in speeches regarding society and culture. Yet when Sarah Palin invoked it regarding a gas pipeline she's cast as an extremist.


I suspect that it's because folks believe Palin when she talks about her faith and don't when Obama talks about his.

457 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:47:38pm

re: #452 Soona'

Sad part about it is, that's exactly what happened on a large scale in '08.

Very true, it was leg tingles, not cognitive thought.

458 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:48:04pm

re: #445 Afton

Gallup Poll...

The survey I checked, done by a research group based at Trinity college, had ~54,000 people checked. The gallup poll was around 17000.

They did have close results- the trinity poll had 76% instead.

And when you are dealing with the population of the united states, 1% is 3 million people. That is a lot of people.

459 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:48:18pm

re: #455 avanti

I sure don't, but lot's of stuff in the Bible just makes good sense. I don't see a problem with helping your fellow man even if it's faith inspired. I have no idea if there is a God or if he/she/they care, but good works are OK with me.

then why does Palin scare you....you keep stepping in the shit...you are worse even than Barry Manilow

460 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:48:18pm

re: #183 Simply Me

I don't support an "exaltation of the individual and his liberty over the collective" that doesn't also include a concern for the common good based on basic moral principals, I can't support a Republican Party that has been taken over by radical libertarians who advocate legalizing marijuana, abortion and same-sex marriage. That is selfish short term thinking that ignores the long run destructive consequences for society.

No, you just wanna legislate your personal ethical preferences upon unwilling others. That's puritanical collectivism, and totalitarian moral imperialism.

It is NOT what a constitutional democratic republic is all about, which is maximizing personal freedoms.

In totalitarianisms, every action must be either mandated or forbidden. In a constitutional democratic republic, otoh, an array of choices must be available, or one cannot exercise the freedom to choose between them. This array will include alternatives that you would not choose, nor are you, or should you be, forced to choose them. However, you also have no right, and should not have a right, to legally coerce unwilling others to make YOUR choices, instead of their differing own.

If you don't like our free and open society, move to an unfree and closed one, but stop trying to morph this nation from the former into the latter.

461 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:48:24pm

re: #454 LGoPs

And what is the common denominator here? The MFM. They set the tone and the details of the debate. They are the enemy.

Probably and see was subjected to an unrelenting barrage during the campaign. Talk about ruthless.

462 callahan23  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:48:32pm

re: #453 DEZes

Sleep well'
Before you go, I have been meaning to ask, about where are you in the world?

Oh, ah .... .. don't get offended but it's Germany. I am planning on getting a green card though.

463 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:49:00pm

re: #428 Killgore Trout

What's with the fake blogs that just consist of random keywords? They're obviously automatically generated but why?

Maybe they're related to Numbers Stations.

464 debutaunt  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:49:31pm

re: #459 albusteve

then why does Palin scare you....you keep stepping in the shit...you are worse even than Barry Manilow

Perfectly comfortable with all his contradictions.

465 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:49:34pm

re: #454 LGoPs

And what is the common denominator here? The MFM. They set the tone and the details of the debate. They are the enemy.

You got it.

466 Digital Display  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:49:46pm

re: #459 albusteve

then why does Palin scare you....you keep stepping in the shit...you are worse even than Barry Manilow

THERE IS NOTHING WORSE THAN BARRY MANILOW!
For gawd sakes Steve..I just ate! LOL

467 quickjustice  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:49:59pm

re: #435 SixDegrees

Not exactly. In a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, management proposes a Chapter 11 plan for the bankruptcy corporation that strips away bad contracts, and restores the bankrupt to competitive status. Management in this case is the U.S. government. If management fails to propose a plan, creditors may do so.

Creditors get to vote on the plan. Senior secured creditors are in a voting category separate from junior unsecured creditors and unsecured creditors. What the lawyer said is that the U.S. government made loans to Chrysler without getting a priority position senior to that of the senior secured creditors. In short, thanks to Obama, the government is in a junior voting position, and is likely to lose at least part of its investment in Chrysler to the senior secured creditors. Smart work, guys!

468 Last Mohican  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:50:43pm

re: #417 albusteve

too simple....gays want to be MARRIED, not unionized...they want heir selfish issue to go to the USSC

Yes, they do, because marriage is sacred to them. They don't just want to do it because of the economic benefits.

469 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:50:50pm

re: #456 rightymouse

I suspect that it's because folks believe Palin when she talks about her faith and don't when Obama talks about his.

Maybe so. They see his invocation as "just words." But he does and has indeed used religious words before, during and after the campaign (which is still in process) yet he is not called out on it by the MSM pundits. It's a complete double standard of course which is only because they are on the same team.

470 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:51:19pm

re: #459 albusteve

then why does Palin scare you....you keep stepping in the shit...you are worse even than Barry Manilow

Like I said, I have no dog in this fight, nominate and run Palin and let the votes settle the argument. You'll lose votes like mine, but we could be the exceptions.

471 Shr_Nfr  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:51:28pm

re: #323 callahan23

My choice right now is a Ford. Their quality is statistically equal to Toyota and ahead of Honda. They just did a 1,000 mile challenge to raise money for the Juvenile Diabetes Society in which the challenge was to drive a Fusion Hybrid 1,000 miles on a tank of gas. They had 1/3 of a tank left when they finished the 1,000 miles. They kept going and ran out of gas at 1,445 miles. Average was 81 mpg. The drivers were hyper milers, so you and I won't get that, but 41 mpg city mileage on a mid-size ain't bad. The Fiesta is the best selling car in Britain along with being car of the year over there. Since Mullaly got a hold on the company, he and Fields have done a lot of things right. The Fiesta and Ka show up stateside next year along with a Focus hybrid. Granted, the Fiesta will be made in Mexico, so if you want American assembled its not for you. The F-150 is still the best truck on the road in its class. The Thundra is a pig on gas and waddles like a duck down the road. Ironically, its the only Toyota product that is made in America with all American parts.

But, I have a nasty habit of driving cars till they really, really, really die. That means 15 years at least. 2 cars out back that are registered and on the road are over 20 years. The auto industry does not get rich off of me in a hurry. I would rather pay my local mechanic in my local town who pays taxes here and employs people here than pay for something new. Anyway, its amazing, when you drive a 20 year old Toyota Tercel that you bought as a charity car whose paint job looks like Nancy Pelosi's makeup, people tend not to cut you off as much.

472 y0kkles  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:51:28pm

Here we go again.

The reason people differ on social issues comes down to whether or not they believe their is an external force that sets truth (ex. God) or that their inner self is the arbiter or truth (ex. how they feel about it). The latter idea is dangerous, as we have seen during the 20th century.

But this also applies to other issues...

When truth is relative, one man's cause is just as good as another's. That's why many libs feel we are on equal moral ground with the terrorists.

We need to frame our views on social issues on our own grounds. As it stands now, our views are explained not by us, but by the liberal media, who set up straw men.

473 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:51:31pm

re: #426 Last Mohican

I agree with you that a great many Americans, maybe even a substantial majority, oppose gay marriage. And I agree that many of those who do oppose gay marriage are "pro-marriage," in that they believe that people marriage is an important and generally beneficial institution, that children should ideally be raised by a married couple, etc.

But it's misleading to say "support traditional marriage" when what you mean is "oppose gay marriage." I personally support traditional marriage, and, if you want to call gay marriage nontraditional, I support that kind of nontraditional marriage too.


Hi Last Mohican,

I updinged your comment because I appreciate you responding to me, although I do not agree with your conclusion and notice that you mis-characterized what I was saying. A very important part of my point was marriage as an institution for heterosexual child rearing. Heterosexual sex creates children -- procreation.

Also, I think it is important to note that people who say they are supporting traditional marriage are concerned that polygamy is next. They think it is important to draw the boundary at "one man and one woman" or it is a slippery slope.

P.S. Only slightly OT, did you notice that bestiality came up on this thread. Not because anyone on this thread was advocating it, but because it was in a law case.

474 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:51:39pm

re: #462 callahan23

Oh, ah .... .. don't get offended but it's Germany. I am planning on getting a green card though.

Not offended, Both grandparents on my moms side immigrated from Germany, and then Grandpa went back in WW2 and fought em, I have a strange collection of his letters.
nite buddy.

475 Killian Bundy  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:53:06pm

/106 days later, are we having fun yet?

476 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:53:08pm

re: #458 Altermite

The survey I checked, done by a research group based at Trinity college, had ~54,000 people checked. The gallup poll was around 17000.

They did have close results- the trinity poll had 76% instead.

And when you are dealing with the population of the united states, 1% is 3 million people. That is a lot of people.

76% is more. Do the math on that.

477 callahan23  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:53:14pm

re: #474 DEZes

Not offended, Both grandparents on my moms side immigrated from Germany, and then Grandpa went back in WW2 and fought em, I have a strange collection of his letters.
nite buddy.

Groovy then. ;-)
Nite mate.

478 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:53:57pm

re: #460 Salamantis

No, you just wanna legislate your personal ethical preferences upon unwilling others. That's puritanical collectivism, and totalitarian moral imperialism.

It is NOT what a constitutional democratic republic is all about, which is maximizing personal freedoms.

In totalitarianisms, every action must be either mandated or forbidden. In a constitutional democratic republic, otoh, an array of choices must be available, or one cannot exercise the freedom to choose between them. This array will include alternatives that you would not choose, nor are you, or should you be, forced to choose them. However, you also have no right, and should not have a right, to legally coerce unwilling others to make YOUR choices, instead of their differing own.

If you don't like our free and open society, move to an unfree and closed one, but stop trying to morph this nation from the former into the latter.

I like the cut of yer jib, matey.

Upding.

479 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:54:14pm

re: #468 Last Mohican

Yes, they do, because marriage is sacred to them. They don't just want to do it because of the economic benefits.

fine...let the feds decide once and for all...but it will only dredge up the next issue...how many people can be married...when they toss the bath water out the window the baby will go with it....why then is polygamy unlawfull?

480 Russkilitlover  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:55:09pm

re: #440 Last Mohican

That, by the way, was McCain's position on gay marriage. And it was also Obama's position. I.e. their positions were identical.

California had that whole Prop 8 thing about gay marriage. I voted it down specifically because the opening sentence said .....homosexuals would be denied the right to......

I have a big problem with any legislation that "denies rights" to anyone.

481 Last Mohican  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:56:16pm

re: #383 avanti

Her extreme religious views. The concept that if I don't have a clue as to what to do, Jesus will make it ok. i.e. the quote "God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that."
I may be a agnostic, but I'd think God does not take a position on gas lines, She's a creationist, once had the demons driven out of her body and the rest.

I agree with you on this. God does not take a position on building gas lines, and it's dangerous to claim otherwise. I also was quite concerned by her saying, in that same speech, something to the effect that fighting the war in Iraq was "doing God's work." It's worth noting that she said those things in church, not in a political speech, but it still bothered me.

Having said that, given the choice between what went on in Palin's church and what went on in Obama's church, I'll take Palin's church in a heartbeat.

482 yochanan  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:56:45pm

re: #472 y0kkles

i have just as much a right to frame my political beliefs based on my religious values as anything else.

483 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:56:53pm

re: #469 Gus 802

Maybe so. They see his invocation as "just words." But he does and has indeed used religious words before, during and after the campaign (which is still in process) yet he is not called out on it by the MSM pundits. It's a complete double standard of course which is only because they are on the same team.


That's the hypocrisy of the media and the left in general. After all, they had no problem with him being called 'The Messiah'. If Republicans said that about one of their candidates, all hell would break loose, and rightfully so.

484 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:57:07pm

re: #467 quickjustice

Not exactly. In a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, management proposes a Chapter 11 plan for the bankruptcy corporation that strips away bad contracts, and restores the bankrupt to competitive status. Management in this case is the U.S. government. If management fails to propose a plan, creditors may do so.

Creditors get to vote on the plan. Senior secured creditors are in a voting category separate from junior unsecured creditors and unsecured creditors. What the lawyer said is that the U.S. government made loans to Chrysler without getting a priority position senior to that of the senior secured creditors. In short, thanks to Obama, the government is in a junior voting position, and is likely to lose at least part of its investment in Chrysler to the senior secured creditors. Smart work, guys!

Thanks for the clarification. The end results seems the same, though - it isn't Chrysler's decision where that money goes or who gets paid back anymore.

I wonder if this will hasten Geithner's departure. He's certainly been locked in a closet for the last couple of weeks. It isn't like there wasn't precedent for how to manage this - it's the second time that Chrysler has taken government money, and the first time around things were very well controlled and understood right from the get-go. This time, it's been like watching a whole flock of suddenly headless chickens rampaging through their coop.

485 ArmyWife  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:57:21pm

Hi group. So. Are we ready to start endorsing our own candidate and take over the RNC?

486 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:57:31pm

re: #216 nikis-knight

Because someone else's buisiness is also at stake. And the state is the arbitor between individuals, at least when they can't settle their differences without the stronger killing the weaker.

A zygote or embryo isn't even a potential person, because the word potential carries with it the connotational baggae of the inevitability of that potential's actualization, and fully a third of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted, or misscarried (which makes God or Nature, whichever you prefer, far and away the world's greatest abortionist, and poses the question of whether a perfect God is making mistakes by causing such abortions, or correcting mistakes committed earlier by allowing the pregnancies to begin in the first place).

No, a zygote or embryo is a possible future person, and when the rights of a possible future person come into conflict with the rights of an actual present person, the rights of the latter must take moral precedence.

487 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:57:31pm

re: #479 albusteve

fine...let the feds decide once and for all...but it will only dredge up the next issue...how many people can be married...when they toss the bath water out the window the baby will go with it....why then is polygamy unlawfull?

Because we don't want double or triple the amount of male mental instability. Having one wife at a time was definitely enough for me.

488 Shr_Nfr  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:57:39pm

re: #435 SixDegrees

Gonzo as he is called by those of us who are distressed debt investors, is caving to everything Obama wants. He is up for re-nomination in october. Nuff said? [Bk judges are not lifetime appointments, they serve 14 year terms.] The bk company has the exclusive right to offer a plan of reorganization for a period of time. If not approved, a cram process can be pulled.

489 alegrias  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:57:50pm

re: #454 LGoPs

And what is the common denominator here? The MFM. They set the tone and the details of the debate. They are the enemy.

* * * *
Liberals will IGNORE their own democrats using faith for political purposes, as props. Liberals ENCOURAGE their politicians to use faith for political purposes.

Hillary Clinton handing Bill Clinton his Bible for the photo ops.

Kennedys & Pelosis getting photo ops with the Pope, while fragrante delicto-ing the church's teachings, for political purposes.

Liberals can't handle persons with faiths Liberals disagree with, though these beliefs POSE NO THREAT. These people are labeled "scary" though they clearly SEPARATE their beliefs from the STATE, and are clearly private and protected by our Constitution as an individual's right.

490 wrenchwench  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:58:55pm

I am impressed at the way this blog went from having discussions of abortion banned for the sake of civility, to having discussions of abortion, conducted with civility. Nice work, Charles. Apparently, banning the shriekers works.

491 capitalist piglet  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:59:15pm

re: #383 avanti

Her extreme religious views. The concept that if I don't have a clue as to what to do, Jesus will make it ok. i.e. the quote "God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that."
I may be a agnostic, but I'd think God does not take a position on gas lines, She's a creationist, once had the demons driven out of her body and the rest.


As far as I've been able to tell, she's a mainstream evangelical Christian. That is not (yet) considered "extreme".

I have never seen that quote before, and would appreciate some context; I am also unaware that she "once had the demons driven out of her body and the rest" (whatever "the rest" means). Could you please cite? I know someone prayed over her in an Assemblies of God church, though I don't remember any language about demons - is that what you're talking about?

Many presidents over the years have prayed over one issue or another, I'm certain. Terrifying, I realize, but somehow we managed.

/

492 yochanan  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:59:37pm

the western view of marriage is based on a watered down version of the christian view of marriage.

polygamy if it is between consenting adults isn't any more morally wrong than other forms of marriage.

493 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:59:38pm

re: #363 LGoPs

The GOP should hire you as a consultant. And then do the exact opposite of what you recommend.

Then I recommend that you not run a creationist female for POTUS. :)

494 HDrepub  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:00:42pm

re: #487 Soona'

Because we don't want double or triple the amount of male mental instability. Having one wife at a time was definitely enough for me.

Heh! I've always told my wife I wouldn't take a million dollars for her, but I also wouldn't give a nickel for another just like her.

495 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:00:49pm

re: #479 albusteve

fine...let the feds decide once and for all...but it will only dredge up the next issue...how many people can be married...when they toss the bath water out the window the baby will go with it....why then is polygamy unlawfull?

Part of my thoughts on this issue is the churches.
Mark this down, cause I bet that Churches would be destroyed by law suits if they refuse to marry gay couples.
Civil unions granting the same rights as married couples has never satisfied many gay couples.
This could be more than redefining marriage, it could force redefining religion.

496 Shr_Nfr  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:01:01pm

re: #484 SixDegrees

The DIP loan is a super-senior priority loan that comes in first above everything, including even lawyers' fees. Unka provided the DIP. From the looks of it the banks and the hedge funds are going to get zip. As somebody pointed out, gee, that is only 300K of our tax money per Chrysler worker. Bah!

497 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:01:11pm

re: #335 Last Mohican

I just think it's not accurate to portray any significant percentage of the pro-choice movement as believing that women should be forced or encouraged to have an abortion against their will, under any circumstances.


Actually, my mother is a big supporter of Planned Parenthood and has told me she thinks some women should be forced to have abortions. When I asked for an example she showed me a newspaper article about a teacher in Seattle who got pregnant by her 12 year old student. He was Polynesian as I recall. She had a French sounding name.

498 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:01:12pm

re: #476 Soona'

76% is more. Do the math on that.

Wait, what? 76% is less than both 77% and 80%.

Or are you talking about more than 24%? Because that I agree with. But for that 24%, not having religious beliefs in politics is a much bigger issue than for most of the 76%.

499 Killian Bundy  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:01:38pm

re: #467 quickjustice

And what about the question no one seems to be asking?

/how much taxpayer money is fat cat private equity hedge fund Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Chrysler's owner getting out of this deal?

500 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:01:44pm

re: #483 rightymouse

That's the hypocrisy of the media and the left in general. After all, they had no problem with him being called 'The Messiah'. If Republicans said that about one of their candidates, all hell would break loose, and rightfully so.

That's another good example, The Messiah, which has the ultimate of religious connotations. Add to that his invocation of "God's Will" in his speeches and his traditional voter base in which the elderly of that base hold socially conservative values many of which are not unlike GOP so-cons. This in fact was evident and played a large role in Prop. 8 in California -- which is something the traditional Democratic liberal base refuses to accept. Had a Republican been called "The Messiah" all hell would have broken loose.

501 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:02:55pm

re: #229 MandyManners

To me, "pro-choice" does not mean "pro-abortion" but, the right to make an individual choice.

The US is not pro-abortion, it is pro-choice, including both the choice to have an abortion and the choice not to have one. China, otoh, is pro-abortion; it legally mandates abortions for all pregnancies women have beyond a small number that each is allowed to bring to term.

502 capitalist piglet  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:02:59pm

re: #497 Simply Me

Actually, my mother is a big supporter of Planned Parenthood and has told me she thinks some women should be forced to have abortions. When I asked for an example she showed me a newspaper article about a teacher in Seattle who got pregnant by her 12 year old student. He was Polynesian as I recall. She had a French sounding name.

Mary Kay LeTourneau. She is married to Vili Fulau now, unless something has happened since they were last in the news.

(My apologies for the spelling of their names - I can't quite remember it.)

503 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:04:08pm

re: #482 yochanan

i have just as much a right to frame my political beliefs based on my religious values as anything else.

I agree 100 %, and I have a right to not vote for someone based on how their religious values may influence their decisions.

504 brookly red  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:04:37pm

re: #499 Killian Bundy

And what about the question no one seems to be asking?
/how much taxpayer money is fat cat private equity hedge fund Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Chrysler's owner getting out of this deal?

The question that I have is, is this whole thing even legal ?

505 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:04:46pm

Well, I must attend to other things.
Have great one all.

506 yochanan  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:04:49pm

ortho Jews will never marry two guys or two women we will accept losing tax benefits before we would accept it.

507 Shr_Nfr  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:04:59pm

re: #492 yochanan

Seem to remember that Jacob had a few wives and of the brothers, only Benjamin ("Son of my right hand") was his full brother. All the rest were half-brothers.

I draw the line at children and animals. They cannot give informed consent. As for the rest, if everyone walks in to the room on their own and walks out of the room under their own power with a smile on their face, and there isn't physical damage, who am I to judge?

508 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:05:07pm

re: #505 DEZes

Well, I must attend to other things.
Have great one all.

Hasta later.

509 ArmyWife  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:05:18pm

re: #481 Last Mohican

Let me give you another perspective to ponder: Though not of the same religion as Sarah, I am very faithful. I do believe strongly in the inalienable rights of men - as in given by G-d. One of those is freedom. We were fighting for freedom in Iraq, we were, in essence, doing G-d's work.

As for gas lines, I read that as praying for the wisdom to reach the necessary conclusion, the right decision, not waiting on the front porch for a telegram from G-d outlining the steps to take.

I don't pretend to be in Sarah Palin's head, but I think sometimes we jump quickly to "evil intention" or "weird". I think the media helps us make that leap more often than not.

510 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:05:32pm

re: #495 DEZes

Part of my thoughts on this issue is the churches.
Mark this down, cause I bet that Churches would be destroyed by law suits if they refuse to marry gay couples.
Civil unions granting the same rights as married couples has never satisfied many gay couples.
This could be more than redefining marriage, it could force redefining religion.

as Duke Nukem used to say "what a messs"

511 capitalist piglet  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:05:33pm

re: #503 avanti

I agree 100 %, and I have a right to not vote for someone based on how their religious values may influence their decisions.

If Obama claims to be a Christian, and Palin claims to be a Christian, what makes one the best thing since sliced bread and the other frightening?

512 DEZes  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:07:42pm

re: #510 albusteve

as Duke Nukem used to say "what a messs"

I loved that game.
Have a good one Steve.

513 brookly red  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:07:44pm

re: #511 capitalist piglet

I will call that a TKO...

514 Soona'  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:07:45pm

Gotta go. See all of you in the funny papers. :D

515 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:07:48pm

re: #256 LGoPs

I've always had a disdain for single issue voters. You could clone Hitler and as long as you made him pro-choice he'd get their vote.

Well, the actual pro-life Hitler got a lot of votes...

516 Randall Gross  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:07:53pm

re: #472 y0kkles

That's a simplex view that denies reason as a means to arrive at moral conclusions, and sounds like "you must have god to have morals." Ben Stein, is that you?

517 jvic  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:08:10pm

re: #303 quickjustice

Abortion was a crime, but not a serious crime. Roe v. Wade said that state legislatures could not make abortion a crime during the first trimester, might be able to make abortion a crime during the second trimester, and could make abortion a crime during the third trimester. Legal geniuses, correct?

re: #315 nikis-knight

The court, in another decision explicitly referenced in Roe ("Doe") expanded the defintion of health so broadly that it is effectively impossible to prevent at any stage of pregnancy in current law.

That's my understanding. Quickjustice, thanks for the info about English common law. Do you by chance have a hyperlink for it?

If abortion were completely outlawed with harsh penalties, it wouldn't take a day for religious wingnuts to come up with something else that God is about to smite this country for. If free walk-in abortion clinics were established on every block, it wouldn't take a day for leftist moonbats to come up with some other reason that Amerikkka is the most oppressive country in history.

In large measure, the abortion wars are fought by people who want to go at each others' throats. In large measure, the generals are people who would be less important if the wars were not going on.

Each side sees big government as the mechanism for forcing its standards on the country.

Since the left favors big government anyway, it's no wonder that they're winning.

518 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:08:36pm

re: #187 Walter L. Newton

And on another note. Here we are on this thread, discussing the far right hyperbole that we see putting a choke hold on the conservative party, and at the same time, we throw label like Marxist on our President. This is not helping, especially when it's not even true.

One of the first and basic tenets of Marxism is a WORKER REVOLUTION, arm conflict between the workers and the bourgeoisie. I really don't see the President trying to position the American worker to go full out postal on their employers.

Marxism is not and NEVER HAS BEEN about working people. It has always been about one group of elites trying to topple another group of elites, while chattering some slogans about "workers" but really not giving a shit about them.

519 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:08:49pm

re: #511 capitalist piglet

If Obama claims to be a Christian, and Palin claims to be a Christian, what makes one the best thing since sliced bread and the other frightening?

One is a creationist, with demons that needed to be driven out, the other used a local church to organize his political career.

520 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:08:55pm

re: #497 Simply Me

Actually, my mother is a big supporter of Planned Parenthood and has told me she thinks some women should be forced to have abortions. When I asked for an example she showed me a newspaper article about a teacher in Seattle who got pregnant by her 12 year old student. He was Polynesian as I recall. She had a French sounding name.

Fucking insane. No one should be forced to terminate a pregnancy. This ain't China.

521 Digital Display  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:08:57pm

Slash is the guest Mentor on American Idol tonight..I wonder if He'll be sharing some of Heroin Stash with the finalists..Probably be a real laid back show tonight..
/

522 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:09:29pm

re: #501 Salamantis

The US is not pro-abortion, it is pro-choice, including both the choice to have an abortion and the choice not to have one. China, otoh, is pro-abortion; it legally mandates abortions for all pregnancies women have beyond a small number that each is allowed to bring to term.

Precisely.

523 Last Mohican  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:10:21pm

re: #473 Simply Me


I updinged your comment because I appreciate you responding to me, although I do not agree with your conclusion and notice that you mis-characterized what I was saying. A very important part of my point was marriage as an institution for heterosexual child rearing. Heterosexual sex creates children -- procreation.

Also, I think it is important to note that people who say they are supporting traditional marriage are concerned that polygamy is next. They think it is important to draw the boundary at "one man and one woman" or it is a slippery slope.

P.S. Only slightly OT, did you notice that bestiality came up on this thread. Not because anyone on this thread was advocating it, but because it was in a law case.

Thanks for the upding, and for addressing my comment respectfully.

I agree, obviously children can only be created by heterosexual pairs of people. But even allowing that children should ideally be raised by a father and a mother, would other arrangements be acceptable? Should single people be allowed to adopt children? Should a parent be forced to give up his or her children if his or her spouse dies? I think that a child would be better off raised by a loving, committed homosexual married couple than, say, being raised in an orphanage, or by a single person. Or, for that matter, being raised by a homosexual couple that would have liked to be married, but wasn't allowed to be. I know you didn't argue otherwise, and I'm not trying to turn your argument into a straw man. I'm just saying that the process of raising a child isn't necessarily connected to the act of creating one.

I've heard the argument that allowing gay marriage establishes a slippery slope that could lead to polygamy, marriages between people and animals, etc. I place no value in that argument, but I admit that this is because of what I view as normal and abnormal. I believe that a certain percentage of people are attracted to members of the same sex, that this behavior cannot be "unlearned," and that it's a normal variant that is fully consistent with a loving, caring, monogamous relationship. I believe that there is no similar biological imperative to have a relationship consisting of, say, four wives and a single husband. But there are certainly some cultures that would disagree with me on that.

524 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:10:39pm

re: #261 nikis-knight

I respect pro-choice positions on everything that doesn't have life or death consequences for others. Being pro-choice on abortion is not merely an extension of being pro-liberty, but also a statement that there is no possible rights or worth whatsoever that a fetus has intrinsically, and complete certainty that you are right in the matter.

No, it is a comparative moral judgment that the rights of a nonviable fetus cannot supersede the rights of the woman.

525 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:10:43pm

re: #511 capitalist piglet

If Obama claims to be a Christian, and Palin claims to be a Christian, what makes one the best thing since sliced bread and the other frightening?

Obama invokes God's will to give you a welfare check and a large Federal government. Palin invoked God's will to give you a gas pipeline, energy, and a job.

526 capitalist piglet  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:10:50pm

re: #513 brookly red

I will call that a TKO...

With that, I will squeeze a water bottle over my face, and get on with my day. : )

Thanks. (It seemed a pretty obvious question, to me.)

527 Guanxi88  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:12:52pm

re: #525 Gus 802

Obama invokes God's will to give you a welfare check and a large Federal government. Palin invoked God's will to give you a gas pipeline, energy, and a job.

And neither one should have soiled the name of the Almighty by dragging Him into any of it.

With her, it was tacky; with him, it's worrisome.

528 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:13:34pm

This isn't going to go over well....
Pope Will Not Visit Israeli Holocaust Museum

It's disappointing that Pope Benedict XVl will not visit Yad Vashem, Israel's national Holocaust museum and memorial on his upcoming trip to the Middle East. And it's equally disappointing that his decision is such a big deal to so many people. Both realities point to the way communities fight over different understandings of the past when they should be addressing real challenges in the present.

I appreciate that the Pope will visit the memorial on the grounds of Israel's national site devoted to Holocaust memory and education, and I note that his decision is no different from that of his predecessor John Paul ll, who was heralded as a kind of inter-religious hero. But it still disappointing that Pope Benedict will skip the museum because of a single display which questions the role of war-time Pope Pius Xll in saving Jews from the Nazis.

529 ArmyWife  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:13:45pm

re: #524 Salamantis

The time for choice is when you have sex. If you have sex, you could end up pregnant. If you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex.

Please note this excludes rare circumstances that include rape and incest. Also note that it is very, very rare for a woman to need an abortion to save her own life.

530 Spenser (with an S)  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:14:54pm

I'm sure others have mentioned this, but the Republican "Heroes of Moderation" like McCain, Snow and others mentioned as the sane ones are not for smaller govt. or individual rights and many times are not tough at all re: national defense. Who's got the whole shebang?

531 ArmyWife  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:15:35pm

re: #530 Spenser (with an S)

me.

532 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:15:38pm

re: #527 Guanxi88

And neither one should have soiled the name of the Almighty by dragging Him into any of it.

With her, it was tacky; with him, it's worrisome.

Probably so. We're now stuck with worrisome.

533 Hanoch  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:15:40pm

Let's be realistic. I know of no Republican candidate who made "sex", "religion", or "creationism" the centerpiece of a national campaign against a Democratic adversary.

What Curmudgeon is apparently attempting to say (however obliquely) is that conservatives should jettison social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and human embryonic testing (those have, indeed, been raised by conservative Republicans in campaigns against Democrats) to strengthen the Republican party. Curmudgeon might as well bang his/her head against a wall--it isn't going to happen. The bottom line is there are those who see a moral society as the ultimate end of politics, and those who are content to sacrifice morality on the alter of political power. Apparently, Curmudgeon belongs to the latter camp.

534 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:16:29pm
535 Guanxi88  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:16:40pm

re: #529 ArmyWife

The time for choice is when you have sex. If you have sex, you could end up pregnant. If you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex.

Please note this excludes rare circumstances that include rape and incest. Also note that it is very, very rare for a woman to need an abortion to save her own life.

I'd add that the widescale availability of effective methods of contraception should, in fact, make abortion so rare as to be a medical esotericism, comparable to the folks who specialize in separating conjoined twins. There is almost no freaking excuse for folks engaged in consensual (hehe!) intercourse to have an unplanned pregnancy these days.

536 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:16:41pm

re: #530 Spenser (with an S)

I'm sure others have mentioned this, but the Republican "Heroes of Moderation" like McCain, Snow and others mentioned as the sane ones are not for smaller govt. or individual rights and many times are not tough at all re: national defense. Who's got the whole shebang?

Part of the problem lies the different axes of moderation. On average, McCain, et al are moderates. But they really aren't the moderates the party needs.

537 Spenser (with an S)  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:17:52pm

re: #529 ArmyWife

Please note this excludes rare circumstances that include rape and incest. Also note that it is very, very rare for a woman to need an abortion to save her own life.

Could I add another "very" and say that it is a red herring meant to draw the argument off course? Why also does no one ever mention the generations of men for whom it is now socially OK for them to impregnate a woman and tell her to "take care of that, will you? Here's $100"

538 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:17:54pm

re: #274 rightymouse

No it's not. The avid pro-choice people I know made fun of Palin and Trig. That said, I still don't think it's the Federal Government's role to legislate one way or another on this issue.

Antiabortionists only complain about the SCOTUS making a ruling regarding abortion, and want this issue to not be federally judicially addressed because the federal judicial addressing of it did not rule their way. Had the SCOTUS pronounced a blanket ban on abortion nationwide, they would relentlessly hail it as the wisest and most constitutionally legitimate decision since the nation's founding.

539 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:18:00pm

re: #533 Hanoch

Let's be realistic. I know of no Republican candidate who made "sex", "religion", or "creationism" the centerpiece of a national campaign against a Democratic adversary.

What Curmudgeon is apparently attempting to say (however obliquely) is that conservatives should jettison social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and human embryonic testing (those have, indeed, been raised by conservative Republicans in campaigns against Democrats) to strengthen the Republican party. Curmudgeon might as well bang his/her head against a wall--it isn't going to happen. The bottom line is there are those who see a moral society as the ultimate end of politics, and those who are content to sacrifice morality on the alter of political power. Apparently, Curmudgeon belongs to the latter camp.

Alternatively, he doesn't agree with your idea of morality, and doesn't think he should have to.

540 Guanxi88  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:18:03pm

re: #532 Gus 802

Probably so. We're now stuck with worrisome.

Yes, yes we are. I get the same creepy feeling from Barry's invocations of the Almighty that I did when Bubba used to go around spouting off from the Book of Isaiah; troubling, to say the least.

541 yochanan  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:18:45pm

the church of rome's view of abortion is based in part of there belief that the baby is pure but the woman is living in sin. if they really believed in the right to life why were they so silent during the shoah?
the jewish traditional view point is that abortion can be the lesser of two evils if the woman life is danger or if she were raped. in fact if is a black and white choice you have to have the abortion.

abortion as birth control isn't accepted

542 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:19:06pm

re: #460 Salamantis

Hi Salamantis,

Your argument doesn't actually make sense because I am only advocating what was the law 50 years ago. Are you claiming that 50 years ago the USA was "puritanical collectivism, and totalitarian moral imperialism"?

And besides, two of the three issues I raised are currently illegal in the USA. What you are advocating is to abolish existing laws about marijuana and marriage.

You are taking an extreme ideological position for the short term desires of the individual against the long term good of the society. That is not conservative. Conservatives tread cautiously and recognize that there will be unintended consequences of their actions.

I can see that you could get together a coalition of pot smokers, people who wanted to have abortions and gays and lesbians with some other people with unusual sexual preferences, each agreeing to support the others "liberty" at the expense of the greater society, but I don't think that will really help the Republican Party.

I am seeing this is about conservative theory versus libertarian ideology.

543 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:19:08pm

re: #519 avanti

One is a creationist, with demons that needed to be driven out, the other used a local church with demons like Rev. Wright that should have been driven out, BUT WERE NOT to organize his political career.

FTFY

544 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:19:13pm
545 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:19:15pm

re: #519 avanti

One is a creationist, with demons that needed to be driven out, the other used a local church to organize his political career.

his church was brazenly racist...hiding behind their faith, the worst sort

546 Last Mohican  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:19:29pm

re: #509 ArmyWife

I see your points, and actually I remember accepting your interpretations as possible ones, when I watched that Sarah Palin video. That's why I was merely uneasy, and not frankly appalled. I'm just afraid of anything that even sounds like "if you vote against me on this issue, you're voting against God." And by the way, I was at least as appalled by Obama's saying "I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here." In America, no candidate should position himself as "God's candidate."

I haven't watched the infamous Sarah Palin church videos in a while. I think I'm going to watch them again now. Here they are:

Part I
Part II

547 nyc redneck  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:19:38pm

re: #454 LGoPs

And what is the common denominator here? The MFM. They set the tone and the details of the debate. They are the enemy.

they are the enemy. look at the pass michelle o got for all the hideous things she
said and did, during the campaign and before.
she was involved in the virulent hate americkkka cult/church long before she got o into it. she reeks of hate for this country. tho she is softening her image now
w/ the help of the msm. including photoshopped images of her on the cover of 'vogue'. looks like sasquatch to me. they have treated this hateful anti-american woman like royalty from day one.

contrast that w/ how sarah was treated.
the petty yapping abt. her wardrobe. (wab $540 sneakers were not mentioned by the msm).
the hateful things said abt. her children and husband.
making fun of her because she was a hunter, a christian, a patriot.
it was so ugly to watch.
and it was so obvious to me why she was ruthlessly attacked.
she was so popular and her message resonated w/ so many americans who love their country.
that is why they hate her.

548 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:20:10pm

Anyone know who Donald Douglas is other than being a Blogger for American Power?

549 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:20:51pm

re: #537 Spenser (with an S)

Could I add another "very" and say that it is a red herring meant to draw the argument off course? Why also does no one ever mention the generations of men for whom it is now socially OK for them to impregnate a woman and tell her to "take care of that, will you? Here's $100"

Because thats a strawman. That kind of attitude is heavily condemned by just about everyone. Remember, its her right to choose, not his.

550 brookly red  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:21:37pm

re: #534 buzzsawmonkey

Sexist! What about the hebangs?

hebangs, shebangs, webangs... sound like a cindy lauper song.

551 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:21:52pm

re: #278 obscured by clouds

How is it that all the Republicans campained on was abstinence, creationism, invasive Christianity, and abortion, and I somehow missed it? And it was so bad that America was forced to choose the less radical choice who just happened to be a virulent anti-capitalist whose "spritual mentor" preached "God DAMN America!" to him for 20+ years?

I'm a conservative who's not changing a damn thing. Commentary like this is meant to make all conservatives sound like knuckle dragging fools because the party has a minority of idiots who believe in BS like creationism. News Flash! The MAJORITY of liberals are anti-defense, blame America firsters, who want to wreck the economy for "fairness" and conservatives are the ones who need to change? Give me a break.

All the polls I've seen show a majority of Republicans are creationists. Here's just one example...

PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.

The link is here:
[Link: www.gallup.com...]

552 capitalist piglet  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:22:06pm

re: #519 avanti

One is a creationist, with demons that needed to be driven out, the other used a local church to organize his political career.

Just when I thought I was out.../thegodfather

First of all, you've yet to prove the casting out of demons business, which I asked for upthread. You can't just throw out a wild charge like that, without at least providing an opportunity to refute it, or put it in some kind of reasonable context (for instance, someone might pray for God's protection over someone - which is quite different than the tie-them-down-pea-soup-vomiting exorcism image you're advancing).

Secondly, what you seem to be saying is that his deliberate, calculated fraud is preferable to her sincere belief. You don't know who he really is, but the one you fear is that one who is honest about who she is.

If that's where you want to place your trust, that's your business - but I find it incredibly foolish.

I really have to go, but I'll check back for the Palin-as-Linda-Blair proof later this evening.

553 Spenser (with an S)  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:22:21pm

re: #536 Altermite

Part of the problem lies the different axes of moderation. On average, McCain, et al are moderates. But they really aren't the moderates the party needs.

So, we need to find an average moderate who is moderate on the correct axes? That'll fire up an electorate :)

554 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:22:44pm

re: #500 Gus 802

That's another good example, The Messiah, which has the ultimate of religious connotations. Add to that his invocation of "God's Will" in his speeches and his traditional voter base in which the elderly of that base hold socially conservative values many of which are not unlike GOP so-cons. This in fact was evident and played a large role in Prop. 8 in California -- which is something the traditional Democratic liberal base refuses to accept. Had a Republican been called "The Messiah" all hell would have broken loose.

Amazing, isn't it?

555 cronus  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:23:20pm

re: #472 y0kkles

Here we go again.

The reason people differ on social issues comes down to whether or not they believe their is an external force that sets truth (ex. God) or that their inner self is the arbiter or truth (ex. how they feel about it). The latter idea is dangerous, as we have seen during the 20th century.

But this also applies to other issues...

When truth is relative, one man's cause is just as good as another's. That's why many libs feel we are on equal moral ground with the terrorists.

We need to frame our views on social issues on our own grounds. As it stands now, our views are explained not by us, but by the liberal media, who set up straw men.

So would you prefer to be governed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Christopher Hitchens?

556 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:23:31pm

re: #533 Hanoch

Let's be realistic. I know of no Republican candidate who made "sex", "religion", or "creationism" the centerpiece of a national campaign against a Democratic adversary.

What Curmudgeon is apparently attempting to say (however obliquely) is that conservatives should jettison social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and human embryonic testing (those have, indeed, been raised by conservative Republicans in campaigns against Democrats) to strengthen the Republican party. Curmudgeon might as well bang his/her head against a wall--it isn't going to happen. The bottom line is there are those who see a moral society as the ultimate end of politics, and those who are content to sacrifice morality on the alter of political power. Apparently, Curmudgeon belongs to the latter camp.

I think Curmudgeon has a good grasp on civics and understands that it's not the governments role to make us the electorate they wish they had.

Think back to prohibition- it was started as a movement to improve the morality of the nation by ending public drunkenness. What resulted in this unnatural meddling of society was much worse.

When you allow a power, in this case- the government, to tinker with the fabric of society, you are relinquishing authority to an entity that cannot possibly plan a society as complex as what we have. In economic terms, we're talking about socialism and communism. Do you really want the government, who can't do anything right, the authority to do the same thing to morality that they would do trying to plan a better economic system?

557 Guanxi88  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:23:44pm

re: #519 avanti

One is a creationist, with demons that needed to be driven out, the other used a local church to organize his political career.

To clarify the distinction then: One sincerely held religious beliefs that were at variance with those held by many nominal members of the same faith, while the other, in your words, "used a local church."

If I've got to pick between someone who sincerely holds a strange, but harmless, theological position and one whose theology places himself and his interests at the heart of the system (as Teh One did, by your own admission, using a house of worship for his purposes), I'll take the snake-chucking, tongue-speaking believer every time, because at least I KNOW what she's doing and why.

558 MandyManners  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:23:51pm

re: #550 brookly red

hebangs, shebangs, webangs... sound like a cindy lauper song.

I've had that song ricocheting around my brain for about five minutes.

559 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:23:53pm

re: #555 cronus

So would you prefer to be governed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Christopher Hitchens?

State of the Union would be worth listening to. (Under Hitchens, obviously.)

560 DistantThunder  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:24:08pm
When we say “sex,” we mean topics like abstinence, promiscuity, homosexuality, pre-marital relations, contraception, sodomy, nudity, pornography, masturbation, same-sex marriage, sex education, abortion, and morning-after pills.

Most of these have social costs, and some have massive public costs. What is the public cost of having 1/4 of all teenage girls in NY with an STD? Huge. Even if private insurance companies are paying for those costs, it's still passed on to the consumers. I know 2 young women that have had cervical cancer before the age of 23 due to HPV, a sexually transmitted virus. They've had to endure difficult, expensive, painful treatments and now their fertility is in question which could lead to even more expense.

Nature is conservative and does not tolerate promiscuity. Work in an OB/GYN office like I did for 6 years - and your eyes will be opened to the depth and breath of the suffering and complications associated with unconservative behaviors. (Unconservative in the physical sense - not political.)

I was just 18, when a woman came into the office with an STD, and I was handed a wad of prescriptions to call in:
2 for her,
2 for her husband,
2 for her lover, and
2 for her lover's wife.
Do the math. This is not fiscally conservative behavior.

561 yochanan  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:24:11pm

re: #550 brookly red

hebangs, shebangs, gangbangs, webangs... sound like a cindy lauper song.


oops.

562 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:24:13pm

re: #554 rightymouse

Amazing, isn't it?

I hate hypocrisy and double-standards.

563 Hanoch  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:24:17pm

re: #539 Altermite

Fair enough. But I'm not the one who wrote an "Open Letter" suggesting how Republicans should vote.

564 ArmyWife  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:24:31pm

re: #546 Last Mohican

I would agree - anyone who feels they are in office because they are somehow chosen by G-d is deluded at best.

That said, I believe G-d has plans for all of us, but that doesn't mean we are his remote control gadgets. We make the choices, we work, we do things the right way and we will be rewarded. I hope that makes sense.

565 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:25:25pm

re: #562 Gus 802

I hate hypocrisy and double-standards.

feds is the short spelling

566 Spenser (with an S)  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:25:30pm

re: #549 Altermite

Because thats a strawman. That kind of attitude is heavily condemned by just about everyone. Remember, its her right to choose, not his

Don't believe it. Why would you heavily condemn a man for "supporting" a constitutional right? I'm not saying someone who would walk away, that is condemned, but it certainly allows a socially OK way to avoid responsibility.

567 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:25:39pm

re: #553 Spenser (with an S)

So, we need to find an average moderate who is moderate on the correct axes? That'll fire up an electorate :)

Terrible as it sounds as a rallying cry, that really was what curmudgeon is saying- we need someone who is moderate on the social axes, not the fiscal one.

568 Steve  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:25:51pm

re: #511 capitalist piglet

If Obama claims to be a Christian, and Palin claims to be a Christian, what makes one the best thing since sliced bread and the other frightening?

Very well stated. Anyone can claim to be anything they want. What determines what they are is how they live out their life etc, etc, etc.

569 Shr_Nfr  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:25:59pm

re: #507 Shr_Nfr

Random factoid on the Joesph story from Genisis. It is recorded that whenever Joesph went out in Egypt people would yell "Abrek". It turns out that this is a phonetic for Middle Egyptian words than mean something of the the order of "Peace be with you". Whoever wrote that part of Gensis knew something about Egypt. The Potiphar and his wife story also has an analog in the ancient Egyptian literature known as the "The tale of twp brothers" Potiphar is also a good legit Egyptian name from the period.

570 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:26:26pm

re: #560 DistantThunder

I'll bet the lover's wife just really enjoyed picking up those prescriptions.

571 Wild Knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:26:32pm

The secular Torquemada. I like it! If you ain't careful, Charles, it's gonna stick. If it does, could we have a virtual dungeon, please? Ahem...

572 Digital Display  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:26:42pm

re: #558 MandyManners

I've had that song ricocheting around my brain for about five minutes.

I've had William Hung's version of She Bangs rattling in my head..
Somebody help me..call 911..
/

573 alegrias  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:26:54pm

re: #497 Simply Me

Actually, my mother is a big supporter of Planned Parenthood and has told me she thinks some women should be forced to have abortions. When I asked for an example she showed me a newspaper article about a teacher in Seattle who got pregnant by her 12 year old student. He was Polynesian as I recall. She had a French sounding name.

* * * *
How charming. NOT. Talk about an extreme situation. That couple married later on I believe, when the boy was of age. The mother went to jail for several years.

574 albusteve  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:26:56pm

muzak----------------------->

575 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:26:58pm

re: #565 albusteve

feds is the short spelling

Feds... do as I say... not as I do...

576 unrealizedviewpoint  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:27:31pm

re: #549 Altermite

Because thats a strawman. That kind of attitude is heavily condemned by just about everyone. Remember, its her right to choose, not his.

I'm pro-life, but disagree with that statement.
It's her future on the line in this case, not hers.
Alternatives needed.

577 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:27:32pm

re: #566 Spenser (with an S)

Don't believe it. Why would you heavily condemn a man for "supporting" a constitutional right? I'm not saying someone who would walk away, that is condemned, but it certainly allows a socially OK way to avoid responsibility.

Because, like I said, that's not supporting a constitutional right. Thats still pressuring her to make a choice, simply in the other direction, and very different from giving her that choice in the first place.

578 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:27:54pm

re: #311 nikis-knight

Well, we've proved that there is nothing special about birth; babies can be delieved via C-section prior to full development and are babies like any others. Viability is a moving target. There is no fixed point, growth and development is a gradual process from begininng through birth and beyond.
Well, there is one point. Conception. The point of acquiring new DNA, from which point onwards there is no sudden transition, only gradual growth.

Enshrining unique DNA sounds suspiciously like a chemical definiton of personhood. Does that mean that if one happens to be a twin, that one of you is expendable, and can be pulled out of the workplace or home and shot? No, it doesn't, because personhood isn't determined by the uniqueness of a single strand of DNA in a freshly fertilized zygote - or for that matter, in a fully grown human. Personhood has to do with other things.

579 unrealizedviewpoint  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:27:55pm

re: #576 unrealizedviewpoint

hers = his
/drinking

580 Guanxi88  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:28:11pm

re: #579 unrealizedviewpoint

hers = his
/drinking

good for you! have one for me.

581 yochanan  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:28:12pm

remember communism is a extreme form of secularism extremes don't work so well do they.

582 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:28:32pm

Social and moral tinkerers- the altruistic- seem to not realize that while their intentions may be good- they come with unforeseen consequences and pitfalls.

Leave the people alone to work within the constraints established by the law and social tradition, and most people will conform. We will always have bad with the good, but the trade-off is that most people adhere to the law and live their lives well enough within the constraints of social traditions, that trying to impose something else upon them is more damaging than what we already have.

583 Guanxi88  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:29:50pm

re: #582 Sharmuta

Social and moral tinkerers- the altruistic- seem to not realize that while their intentions may be good- they come with unforeseen consequences and pitfalls.

Leave the people alone to work within the constraints established by the law and social tradition, and most people will conform. We will always have bad with the good, but the trade-off is that most people adhere to the law and live their lives well enough within the constraints of social traditions, that trying to impose something else upon them is more damaging than what we already have.

Who knew Edmund Burke was a smurf?

584 alegrias  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:29:50pm

re: #537 Spenser (with an S)

Could I add another "very" and say that it is a red herring meant to draw the argument off course? Why also does no one ever mention the generations of men for whom it is now socially OK for them to impregnate a woman and tell her to "take care of that, will you? Here's $100"

* * * *
Charming social convention. NOT

How enlightened. NOT

Imagine how these women must feel about themselves and about their "partner." Not to mention years later.

585 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:29:59pm

re: #581 yochanan

remember communism is a extreme form of secularism


No. It is not. This is blatantly untrue.

Yes, communist governments have not been pro-religion. This does not make communism "a form of secularism".

What do you think secularism means?

586 3echo9  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:29:59pm

Right so it's late term abortions that are extreme. Just for future reference, can someone tell me exactly on which day of pregnancy that an abortion transforms from run of the mill to extreme?

587 cronus  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:30:11pm

re: #581 yochanan

remember communism is a extreme form of secularism extremes don't work so well do they.

Funny, I thought it was primarily focused on collectivism.

588 jaunte  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:30:53pm

It's F. A. Hayek's birthday today. Here's a little something from his essay
Why I Am Not a Conservative which supports some of what the Curmudgeon says in his letter. The whole thing is worth reading.

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.

589 jaunte  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:31:23pm

Of course a link would be good:
[Link: www.fahayek.org...]

590 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:31:50pm

re: #325 Soona'

Murder is a moral issue. Should there be no legislation for that?

Murder, theft, rape, slavery and kidnapping are legal criminal issues because they involve the violation of peoples' rights to life, freedom, and property.

Sexual and religious choices do not involve such things.

591 Hanoch  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:32:22pm

re: #556 Sharmuta

Does a government "tinker with the fabric of society" when it prohibits murder, theft, prostitution, etc., etc.? The notion that law is made without reference to morality is not correct.

592 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:33:56pm

re: #550 brookly red

hebangs, shebangs, webangs... sound like a cindy lauper song.

Then there was this guy.

593 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:34:02pm

re: #523 Last Mohican


I've heard the argument that allowing gay marriage establishes a slippery slope that could lead to polygamy, marriages between people and animals, etc. I place no value in that argument, but I admit that this is because of what I view as normal and abnormal. I believe that a certain percentage of people are attracted to members of the same sex, that this behavior cannot be "unlearned," and that it's a normal variant that is fully consistent with a loving, caring, monogamous relationship. I believe that there is no similar biological imperative to have a relationship consisting of, say, four wives and a single husband. But there are certainly some cultures that would disagree with me on that.


I actually agree with you that there is a "certain percentage of people are attracted to members of the same sex, that this behavior cannot be 'unlearned,'" And I do think it is good for society to allow those people to enter into special legal partnerships for property ownership and health care, etc. But I am very concerned that we should not confuse that with "marriage".

And I am concerned that as the percent of the world population that is Muslim grows and the percent of the population in western countries that are Muslim grows (because you know they have a much higher birth rate), there will be a push for legalizing polygamy, which will be very bad for heterosexual women. So at some level I see this as being about what gay men want now versus what I think will be in the best interests of my daughter and (hopefully, not yet born) granddaughters 30-50 years from now.

594 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:35:13pm

re: #562 Gus 802

I hate hypocrisy and double-standards.

Me too.

595 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:36:52pm

re: #552 capitalist piglet

Just when I thought I was out.../thegodfather

First of all, you've yet to prove the casting out of demons business, which I asked for upthread. You can't just throw out a wild charge like that, without at least providing an opportunity to refute it, or put it in some kind of reasonable context (for instance, someone might pray for God's protection over someone - which is quite different than the tie-them-down-pea-soup-vomiting exorcism image you're advancing).


Demons.

596 brookly red  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:37:00pm

re: #592 rightymouse

Then there was this guy.

one more reason I don't have TV...

597 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:38:05pm

re: #591 Hanoch

It is within the scope of government to to prohibit such things as murder, theft, and rape because they violate the rights of others. Our laws reflect our values, not the other way around.

598 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:38:37pm
599 alegrias  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:39:53pm

re: #549 Altermite

Because thats a strawman. That kind of attitude is heavily condemned by just about everyone. Remember, its her right to choose, not his.

* * * *
You are so wrong. A teenage girl abused/impregnated by 30 year old guy, is being USED, isn't choosing as an equal.

Women and young women don't always "choose" to become pregnant.

YOU are erroneously absolving all males in every situation from 100% of contraception or restraint.

600 jvic  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:40:14pm

re: #591 Hanoch

Does a government "tinker with the fabric of society" when it prohibits murder, theft, prostitution, etc., etc.? The notion that law is made without reference to morality is not correct.

Nor is the notion that all morality should be enforced by law.

(re: #597 Sharmuta

It is within the scope of government to to prohibit such things as murder, theft, and rape because they violate the rights of others. Our laws reflect our values, not the other way around.

)

601 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:41:10pm

re: #337 nikis-knight

What isn't a philosophical question? The point is that there is no legitimate reason to pick any point between conception and birth, rather than after. Except a philosophy that values all people.
I want it outlawed at all times because I think a real person's life is at stake. If it were the case and I was wrong, I would have the inconvience of many women on my conscious, and a few deaths. However, with it legal, if we are wrong how many people's deaths do we instead have?
The difference in scope to me is staggering.

I draw the line at fetal viability, when individual survival is possible without the bodily support of a particular individual.

Would you execute abortion doctors and the women who visit them, since, by your definition, they are involved in a murder conspiracy? Would you chainstraitjacket women judged to be likely to self-abort, and shackle them to birthing beds?

Smacks too much of Third Reich lebensborns to me. Although even they were not that extreme.

602 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:43:01pm

re: #343 Soona'

That's because moderates are nothing but closet liberals.

So anyone to the left of Alan Keyes is equivalent to Dennis Kucinich?

603 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:43:23pm
604 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:44:04pm

re: #599 alegrias

* * * *
You are so wrong. A teenage girl abused/impregnated by 30 year old guy, is being USED, isn't choosing as an equal.

Women and young women don't always "choose" to become pregnant.

YOU are erroneously absolving all males in every situation from 100% of contraception or restraint.

Wait, what? I said that the guy throwing money at her and pressuring her to get an abortion is at fault, and it should be her choice whether or not to get an abortion. I'm not talking about sex here- I'm talking about the abortion.

605 alegrias  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:45:07pm

re: #586 3echo9

Right so it's late term abortions that are extreme. Just for future reference, can someone tell me exactly on which day of pregnancy that an abortion transforms from run of the mill to extreme?

* * * *
Ask a democrat. They've decided.

606 Aye Pod  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:45:18pm

Can someone click this and tell me if they can access the page?

[Link: www.hurryupharry.org...]

607 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:46:14pm

re: #606 Jimmah

Can someone click this and tell me if they can access the page?

[Link: www.hurryupharry.org...]

Nope. 403 error.

608 jaunte  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:46:33pm

re: #606 Jimmah

I can't access the page, and Harry's Place won't open from my bookmark, either.

609 Hanoch  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:46:41pm

re: #597 Sharmuta

Social conservatives would simply respond that the rights of unborn children are being violated and thus government has a right to restrict it. Perhaps a prohibitionist would argue that the rights of people killed by drunk drivers are being violated.

610 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:47:06pm
611 TheMatrix31  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:47:59pm

re: #348 avanti

I hear that all the time, but if you truly believe it, nominate her, it'll be the final wake up call for the GOP's wrong direction. As much as you don't get the appeal of BHO to the middle and left, you overestimate Palin's appeal outside of the base.

How the hell does Barack Hussein 0bama have appeal to the middle when he's was the most radical person in the Senate and is now the most radical President in history?

612 Aye Pod  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:48:10pm

Thanks guys - same here. Unusual for them to be down for a whole day.

613 yochanan  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:48:27pm

re: #587 cronus

it is both. except communism takes the place of religion some would say it is a religion.

614 rightymouse  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:48:51pm

re: #596 brookly red

Then there was this guy.

one more reason I don't have TV

lol! Don't blame you at all.

I do like a few shows and that's about it. - mostly before bed which is what I'm going to do now on the couch in the family/great room before my eyeballs are too tired.

615 ladycatnip  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:49:03pm

Just read it, but think the shotgun effect is a little over-used. I can't remember the GOP ever making masturbation, contraception or pre-marital sex a campaign issue - but then I'm from California. The writer throws in pornography - why is that on the list? Never heard that as a campaign issue either, but as a Christian conservative, would definitely not want a candidate that has no problem with porn sites on library computers where children study, or looks the other way regarding child-porn distribution. Do I believe in sex police? No - just protect our children.

Biological research must be the new name for stem-cell research which can be an issue for some. I personally have difficulty with pluripotent stem cell lines from aborted babies, but there are several other lines being researched along side embryonic stem cells - IPSC's using adult stem cells have been successful. Basically, the research is going on in spite of the rhetoric on both sides; the science is promising, but as yet no breakthrough discoveries have appeared. I say move forward with sensitivity.

I would also caution against marginalizing Christians - we are not Puritanical, self-righteous meglomanics wanting to force our faith on the general population. Only some are doing that, but are not representative at all of mainstream Christianity.

All in all, it seems there are too many issues in this article - the only ones I agree with would be to not allow partial birth abortions - which are barbaric by any standards - to keep science in the classroom and faith in the churches, and do not redefine marriage, but have civil unions with full benefits afforded to same sex partners.

616 alegrias  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:49:55pm

re: #603 Iron Fist

Communism is also called "Dialetical Materialism". Not by the Right so much as by themselves. The term is from Marx. So is the statement that"Religion is the opiate of the masses." Marxism is from its inception hostile to religion.
I'm curious. Why do you think Marxism isn't a secular belief system? What would you call it?

* * * *
Pay No Attention to the Worship of Pickled Vladimir Lenin in Red Square!

Pay No Attention to "There is no God but Marx, and Lenin, Mao, Stalin & Fidel are his prophets."

617 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:49:59pm

re: #611 TheMatrix31

How the hell does Barack Hussein 0bama have appeal to the middle when he's was the most radical person in the Senate and is now the most radical President in history?

Because almost 70 % of the country does not see him as the radical you do.

618 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:50:03pm

re: #603 Iron Fist

Communism is also called "Dialetical Materialism". Not by the Right so much as by themselves. The term is from Marx. So is the statement that"Religion is the opiate of the masses." Marxism is from its inception hostile to religion.
I'm curious. Why do you think Marxism isn't a secular belief system? What would you call it?

Because Marx being a secularist doesn't make communism the ending point of secularism. The quote I was objecting to refers to communism as "the extreme form of secularism". Secularism has nothing to do with the uprise of the workingclass, or any most any other communist ideal. The only one that can be said to be shared is a lack of religious belief.

619 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:51:02pm

re: #600 jvic

It's amazing, really, that so many rightfully mistrust the government's ability to handle much of anything, but I'm supposed to be willing to let them dictate morality to me?! I'll stick with tried and true social traditions, and my faith as a guide over the government.

620 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:51:53pm

re: #557 Guanxi88

To clarify the distinction then: One sincerely held religious beliefs that were at variance with those held by many nominal members of the same faith, while the other, in your words, "used a local church."

If I've got to pick between someone who sincerely holds a strange, but harmless, theological position and one whose theology places himself and his interests at the heart of the system (as Teh One did, by your own admission, using a house of worship for his purposes), I'll take the snake-chucking, tongue-speaking believer every time, because at least I KNOW what she's doing and why.

I'd say "strange, but harmless" is in the eye of the beholder. One of the guest pastors at Palin's church bragged about his group running "witches" out of town in their African village. No big deal to me personally, but if I were one of the women in that village deemed a "witch" and beaten up, I don't think I'd feel the local church was "strange, but harmless." Agree?

621 alegrias  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:52:45pm

re: #604 Altermite

Wait, what? I said that the guy throwing money at her and pressuring her to get an abortion is at fault, and it should be her choice whether or not to get an abortion. I'm not talking about sex here- I'm talking about the abortion.

* * * *
Sorry, I missed your referent. Thank you for clarifying.

Still, it is an awful decision for a girl, teen, woman to make (now usually alone) as it usually means the relationship isn't going anywhere, nor is the female loved enough by her partner to have the relationship made official through marriage leading to family formation.

622 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:52:47pm

re: #379 nikis-knight

The exact details of the punishments can worked out by legislatures. I would make both of those illegal in any nation I ran, at least without significant risk to the mother, and I am ambivalent about rape and brain-dead children. (I mean, abortions in those cases; of course I am extremly against rape and birth defects. but I would not push to exclude exceptions to rape, even though it is sad that the child should die for the father's crime.)
I think abortion doctors should lose medical liscenses and be jailed for a time, women who go to them fined something that makes birth and adoption a better choice in whatever calcuation that they make.

Women do not decide to obtain abortions frivolously or cavalierly, as though it's a matter of changing their hair color in a salon; most of them agonize over the decision. However, once they have decided, many of them are so committed to their decision that they will do ANYTHING, including attempting to self-abort, to follow it through. They are like desperate trapped animals willing to chew off paws in order to escape.

I do not want to see a return to the days of septic or bled out women flooding hospitals and morgues. If a blanket ban on abortions is ever instituted in this country, I will become a drug dealer. And the drug I would deal, at cost, would be RU-486.

To me, it seems the only moral, decent, humane, and humanitarian course.

623 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:52:56pm

re: #609 Hanoch

Social conservatives would simply respond that the rights of unborn children are being violated and thus government has a right to restrict it. Perhaps a prohibitionist would argue that the rights of people killed by drunk drivers are being violated.

That's pretty stupid- the rights of people killed by drunk drivers HAVE been violated!

As for abortion- don't make assumptions about me and my position on that topic. If you'd care to know, then ask, but assumptions make a what out of you?

624 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:53:54pm

re: #609 Hanoch

Social conservatives would simply respond that the rights of unborn children are being violated and thus government has a right to restrict it. Perhaps a prohibitionist would argue that the rights of people killed by drunk drivers are being violated.

You summed it up in your post, you see a fetus as a unborn child, with rights, others see a fetus, a potential child if carried to viability and give the mother more rights.

625 TheMatrix31  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:54:13pm

re: #617 avanti

Because almost 70 % of the country does not see him as the radical you do.

His record speaks for itself. His associations speak for themselves. His actions speak for themselves.

If I associate with America-hating racists, if I admit to having a "fling" with Marxist ideology back in college, if I have friends who bombed the US and still have virulent hatred towards my country, what the hell would YOU call me?

626 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:55:21pm

re: #551 ShanghaiEd

All the polls I've seen show a majority of Republicans are creationists. Here's just one example...

PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.creationists. Here's just one example...

PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.
The link is here:
[Link: www.gallup.com...]


Fascinating, but I am totally bummed! If 60% of Republicans believe this, than there is no way the Republican Party can survive if the other 40% alienate them. And since only 44% of all people believe this, it is an election loser on a national level. But how do you convince them of that?

I almost feel like becoming an Independent, I am so embarrassed.

627 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:55:51pm

re: #625 TheMatrix31

His record speaks for itself. His associations speak for themselves. His actions speak for themselves.

If I associate with America-hating racists, if I admit to having a "fling" with Marxist ideology back in college, if I have friends who bombed the US and still have virulent hatred towards my country, what the hell would YOU call me?

A guy with poor taste in friends?
/sorta.

628 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:57:46pm

re: #416 nikis-knight

Are civil unions homosexual only and restricted to two non-related people, and if so, why?

I see no need for heterosexuals to be prohibited from also engaging in civil unions, if they object to the term 'marriage', although I cannot forsee many heterosexuals choosing this course.

629 jvic  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:57:58pm

re: #619 Sharmuta

It's amazing, really, that so many rightfully mistrust the government's ability to handle much of anything, but I'm supposed to be willing to let them dictate morality to me?!

Does the theocratic right really mistrust the government on things other than morality? Spending under Bush and Huckabee comes to mind, but my question isn't rhetorical. I'd like to understand better.

630 dcbatlle  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:59:21pm

That's odd. The same people attacking the "religious Right" and calling for the party to return to the fiscally conservative "center" are also lambasting Rush Limbaugh.

Is there a greater fiscal conservative than Rush Limbaugh? No. Is Limbaugh a religious Right? No. Yet he's lumped in with the RR and "extremists" of the party by these so-called "moderates".

Which leads to me wonder, who exactly are these Republican "moderates" we keep hearing from, and more importantly-- what exactly do they want?

631 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:59:48pm

re: #620 ShanghaiEd

I'd say "strange, but harmless" is in the eye of the beholder. One of the guest pastors at Palin's church bragged about his group running "witches" out of town in their African village. No big deal to me personally, but if I were one of the women in that village deemed a "witch" and beaten up, I don't think I'd feel the local church was "strange, but harmless." Agree?

Witches in some of the African countries are not harmless. We are naive to apply our American frame of reference to what goes on there.

632 Velvet Elvis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:00:13pm

re: #611 TheMatrix31

How the hell does Barack Hussein 0bama have appeal to the middle when he's was the most radical person in the Senate and is now the most radical President in history?

OK. I have to answer this just one time. Ever heard of Bernie Sanders? He's in the senate. He's a socialist. He describes himself as such. If you ask him if he's a socialist he'll say yes. There is no possible way that Obama is more radical than Bernie Sanders. There's just no fucking way. Anyone who claims Obama was the most liberal/radical/leftist person in the senate is full of crap. Proof in point: Bernie Sanders who would gladly nationalize all industry in the United States.

633 ladycatnip  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:01:23pm

#626 Simply Me

Fascinating, but I am totally bummed! If 60% of Republicans believe this, than there is no way the Republican Party can survive if the other 40% alienate them. And since only 44% of all people believe this, it is an election loser on a national level. But how do you convince them of that?

I almost feel like becoming an Independent, I am so embarrassed.

Don't be embarrassed - I think this issue is being driven by the wrong folks and does NOT represent the majority of Republicans at all. I've been in the GOP for the better part of 40 years and it has never been an issue - ever. Whoever these ID people are, I distrust them; I distrust their motives and their politics. The very fact that creationism is now an epithet is beyond my comprehension! It makes me angry.

634 irongrampa  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:02:25pm

re: #352 DistantThunder

Palin's appeal isn't political.If you're from any area or are any group that is sneered at by the elitists then you know people like her. In all probability, you ARE her.

635 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:02:57pm

re: #426 Last Mohican

I agree with you that a great many Americans, maybe even a substantial majority, oppose gay marriage. And I agree that many of those who do oppose gay marriage are "pro-marriage," in that they believe that people marriage is an important and generally beneficial institution, that children should ideally be raised by a married couple, etc.

But it's misleading to say "support traditional marriage" when what you mean is "oppose gay marriage." I personally support traditional marriage, and, if you want to call gay marriage nontraditional, I support that kind of nontraditional marriage too.

Since roughly 50% of first marriages and 75% of subsequent marriages already end in divorce, and fully a third of American children are currently being born out of wedlock; I fail to see what damage allowing gay civil unions could possibly do to the institution of marriage, over and above what damage heterosexuals are already inflicting upon it themselves.

Personally, I see the legal "gay civil union' recognition of enduring committed monogamous homosexual relationships as pro-family.

636 Velvet Elvis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:03:51pm

I just hafta chip in as a defector from the left and say that leftist opposition to nuclear power is pretty much dead. It's on life support along with gun control.

There's a whole new generation of leftist environmentalists who have the common sense to see that coal is way worse than nuclear power. The hippies who have been on a "now nukes" kick for 40 years now as too stuck in their ways to see what's what, but something like 50% of democrats support new nuclear power plants.

637 TheMatrix31  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:04:49pm

re: #632 Conservative Moonbat

OK. I have to answer this just one time. Ever heard of Bernie Sanders? He's in the senate. He's a socialist. He describes himself as such. If you ask him if he's a socialist he'll say yes. There is no possible way that Obama is more radical than Bernie Sanders. There's just no fucking way. Anyone who claims Obama was the most liberal/radical/leftist person in the senate is full of crap. Proof in point: Bernie Sanders who would gladly nationalize all industry in the United States.

Senate "Liberal" Rankings - 2007

638 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:06:09pm

re: #625 TheMatrix31

His record speaks for itself. His associations speak for themselves. His actions speak for themselves.

If I associate with America-hating racists, if I admit to having a "fling" with Marxist ideology back in college, if I have friends who bombed the US and still have virulent hatred towards my country, what the hell would YOU call me?

I don't judge a man on his associations, only his actions. My Godfather was a first generation Greek immigrant, and sadly a bigot. He died one, but did not pass it on to his kids or my family.

639 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:07:18pm

Terribly late to the show, but I just wanted to pop in and say that was a great read. Excellent work, Curmudgeon.

640 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:08:26pm

re: #631 Simply Me

Witches in some of the African countries are not harmless. We are naive to apply our American frame of reference to what goes on there.

I'm not pro-witch, but I think they are entitled to the rule of law instead of vigilante justice. Some reporters discovered that the "witches" the visiting Wasilla pastor bragged about vanquishing were a couple of crabby older ladies who were critical of the church's leadership.

Leaving justice to religious leaders of any stripe is an invitation to disaster.re: #633 ladycatnip

#626 Simply Me

Don't be embarrassed - I think this issue is being driven by the wrong folks and does NOT represent the majority of Republicans at all. I've been in the GOP for the better part of 40 years and it has never been an issue - ever. Whoever these ID people are, I distrust them; I distrust their motives and their politics. The very fact that creationism is now an epithet is beyond my comprehension! It makes me angry.

641 TheMatrix31  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:08:35pm

re: #638 avanti

I don't judge a man on his associations, only his actions. My Godfather was a first generation Greek immigrant, and sadly a bigot. He died one, but did not pass it on to his kids or my family.

Actions come from judgment, and so do associations.

If your judgment leads you to awful, offensive, horrible associations, chances are your words and actions will DIRECTLY relate.

642 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:09:50pm
643 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:09:59pm

My apologies; I jumbled parts of two comments into one. A revised version of the second will follow shortly.

644 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:10:56pm

re: #18 Sharmuta

To know what issues appeal not only to Republicans, but also to most Americans, consider Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America, the most successful thing we’ve done since nominating Ronald Reagan.


A-frickin'-men!

Agreed. Also a bit sad, when you think about it.

645 ladycatnip  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:11:49pm

#640 ShangheiEd

Leaving justice to religious leaders of any stripe is an invitation to disaster.re: #633 ladycatnip

#626 Simply Me

Don't be embarrassed - I think this issue is being driven by the wrong folks and does NOT represent the majority of Republicans at all. I've been in the GOP for the better part of 40 years and it has never been an issue - ever. Whoever these ID people are, I distrust them; I distrust their motives and their politics. The very fact that creationism is now an epithet is beyond my comprehension! It makes me angry.

You get a hearty "amen" from this lizard. If any religion begins to dictate justice and not our laws and Constitution, then we're ripe for sharia.

646 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:11:59pm

re: #633 ladycatnip

#626 Simply Me

Don't be embarrassed - I think this issue is being driven by the wrong folks and does NOT represent the majority of Republicans at all. I've been in the GOP for the better part of 40 years and it has never been an issue - ever. Whoever these ID people are, I distrust them; I distrust their motives and their politics. The very fact that creationism is now an epithet is beyond my comprehension! It makes me angry.

Are you saying that all the national polls are wrong, because they disagree with your local, personal experience?

647 jvic  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:12:54pm

re: #632 Conservative Moonbat

OK. I have to answer this just one time. Ever heard of Bernie Sanders? He's in the senate. He's a socialist. He describes himself as such. If you ask him if he's a socialist he'll say yes. There is no possible way that Obama is more radical than Bernie Sanders. There's just no fucking way. Anyone who claims Obama was the most liberal/radical/leftist person in the senate is full of crap. Proof in point: Bernie Sanders who would gladly nationalize all industry in the United States.

You're correct, but let's keep this kind of thing in mind:

When Barack Obama came to the University of Vermont a year and a half ago, to campaign for Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch, he drew a crowd so large that campaign workers eventually had to seal the doors of Ira Allen Chapel.

Sanders is to Obama's right in the second image. See this too.

648 Velvet Elvis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:14:09pm

re: #637 TheMatrix31

Senate "Liberal" Rankings - 2007

The rankings of Obama vs Sanders on that pretty much prove it's a worthless survey because Sanders is a fucking self-admitted Socialist and is proud to be one. His volunteers call themselves Sanderneistas.

649 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:14:19pm

re: #529 ArmyWife

The time for choice is when you have sex. If you have sex, you could end up pregnant. If you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex.

Please note this excludes rare circumstances that include rape and incest. Also note that it is very, very rare for a woman to need an abortion to save her own life.

You apparently think that sex is all about procreation rather than recreation. But what about cases in which contraception fails? Should people be forced to bring pregnancies to term when they took reasonable but unsuccessful precautions against them?

650 ladycatnip  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:16:11pm

#646 ShanghaiEd

I don't necessarily believe polls just because they shout out a percentage - depends upon what question was asked and exactly how they couched it. Polls can be misleading. As I said upthread, I do not believe a handful of politicians or ID'ers speaks for mainstream Christianity. There is a danger is marginalizing a huge group of people because of their faith.

651 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:16:12pm

re: #629 jvic

How many on the right would trust the government with their healthcare? Retirement? Ability to run low income housing? Probably not many. I sure don't.

Basically- anything the government gets involved in, it makes worse, with few exceptions, such as national defense, but I'm sure some might even argue that point.

When you think back in our recent history, when did our society start getting "ill", as some say? Many of the RRs point to the removal of prayer from schools, but I don't think that's it. I think the cause is the war on poverty. It was at that point that the government began to undermine the traditional family, as well as undermine personal responsibility. With those two traditional social institutions under assault, how could societal degradation not occur?

652 TheMatrix31  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:16:45pm

re: #648 Conservative Moonbat

The rankings of Obama vs Sanders on that pretty much prove it's a worthless survey because Sanders is a fucking self-admitted Socialist and is proud to be one. His volunteers call themselves Sanderneistas.

Just because 0bama hasn't admitted as such doesn't mean he's not.

653 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:16:56pm

re: #641 TheMatrix31

Actions come from judgment, and so do associations.

If your judgment leads you to awful, offensive, horrible associations, chances are your words and actions will DIRECTLY relate.

All of his association were pragmatic. He joined the most connected church for political reasons, he met Ayers for the same reasons. He used them, and moved on.

654 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:17:07pm

re: #44 JCM

There's an idea distract them!

In that case we should entice them into and in depth investigation with fact finding into the pr0n industry.

The country demands to know are those fake or natural!

In that case, they owe me a big, fat, retroactive grant for the copious amounts of research I have conducted. Sadly, I don't think our economy is strong enough to pay me what I'm due.
/

655 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:17:24pm

re: #645 ladycatnip

Thanks, ladycatnip. Your "amen" to the rule of law put me into an updinging mood...

656 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:18:06pm

re: #533 Hanoch

Let's be realistic. I know of no Republican candidate who made "sex", "religion", or "creationism" the centerpiece of a national campaign against a Democratic adversary.

What Curmudgeon is apparently attempting to say (however obliquely) is that conservatives should jettison social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and human embryonic testing (those have, indeed, been raised by conservative Republicans in campaigns against Democrats) to strengthen the Republican party. Curmudgeon might as well bang his/her head against a wall--it isn't going to happen. The bottom line is there are those who see a moral society as the ultimate end of politics, and those who are content to sacrifice morality on the alter of political power. Apparently, Curmudgeon belongs to the latter camp.

The Taliban and the Saudi Muttawa also see a moral society as the ultimate end of politics; they just have a different, in some but not all respects, and in degree rather than in essence in others, definition of morality than do those opposed to abortion and gay civil unions and in favor of creationism in public madrassas schools.

657 TheMatrix31  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:19:39pm

re: #653 avanti

All of his association were pragmatic. He joined the most connected church for political reasons, he met Ayers for the same reasons. He used them, and moved on.

lol, ok.

658 kansas  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:20:58pm

#653 avanti

All of his association were pragmatic. He joined the most connected church for political reasons, he met Ayers for the same reasons. He used them, and moved on.

You seem to know Obama personally. Are you from Chicago or did you meet him in D.C.?

659 Velvet Elvis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:23:27pm

re: #647 jvic

I never said anything about birds of a feather not flocking together. Just that I find it hard to believe that Obama is more radical than Sanders.

660 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:23:31pm

re: #409 Gus 802

avanti only likes the faith of his Holy Messiah-King, everyone else is a false prophet worthy of anathema.

661 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:23:37pm

re: #542 Simply Me

Hi Salamantis,

Your argument doesn't actually make sense because I am only advocating what was the law 50 years ago. Are you claiming that 50 years ago the USA was "puritanical collectivism, and totalitarian moral imperialism"?

And besides, two of the three issues I raised are currently illegal in the USA. What you are advocating is to abolish existing laws about marijuana and marriage.

You are taking an extreme ideological position for the short term desires of the individual against the long term good of the society. That is not conservative. Conservatives tread cautiously and recognize that there will be unintended consequences of their actions.

I can see that you could get together a coalition of pot smokers, people who wanted to have abortions and gays and lesbians with some other people with unusual sexual preferences, each agreeing to support the others "liberty" at the expense of the greater society, but I don't think that will really help the Republican Party.

I am seeing this is about conservative theory versus libertarian ideology.

What is eminently unconservative is to abandon and forsake the conservative stance's traditional alignment with the individual personal freedom to make one's own private life decisions, and instead to embrace the legislation of collectivist moral mandates upon vast masses of unwilling citizens in such matters.

662 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:24:02pm

re: #658 kansas

#653 avanti

You seem to know Obama personally. Are you from Chicago or did you meet him in D.C.?

I met McCain but never met Obama.

663 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:26:03pm

I don't see how it's anyone's business if another citizen wants to smoke pot. The fact is- it's far less harmful than alcohol.

664 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:26:23pm

re: #611 TheMatrix31

How the hell does Barack Hussein 0bama have appeal to the middle when he's was the most radical person in the Senate and is now the most radical President in history?

Because the FMSM has done one of the best propaganda jobs in all of history hiding just those very views from the general electorate.

665 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:26:24pm

re: #650 ladycatnip

#646 ShanghaiEd

I don't necessarily believe polls just because they shout out a percentage - depends upon what question was asked and exactly how they couched it. Polls can be misleading. As I said upthread, I do not believe a handful of politicians or ID'ers speaks for mainstream Christianity. There is a danger is marginalizing a huge group of people because of their faith.

I agree, polls aren't gospel. The problem is that ID'ers are not just a weird handful of people. They're a major, steamrolling movement, funded by Republican philanthropists, as a "stealth" way of forcing Creationism into law and public school curricula. I can give you the links to the court case that proved ID and Creationism are the same philosophy with different labels, if you're interested.

666 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:27:15pm

Sorry for the double post. I'm still a klutz with these buttons, apparently.

667 ladycatnip  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:28:01pm

#653 avanti

All of his association were pragmatic. He joined the most connected church for political reasons, he met Ayers for the same reasons. He used them, and moved on.

I mistrust people to the core who "use" people; your term pragmatic is a euphemistic term for manipulator and narcissist - both apt descriptions of Obama. .

668 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:28:25pm

What people do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody's damned business provided they're not infringing upon the rights of another. If someone wants to smoke cat poop- what business is it of yours?!

669 TheMatrix31  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:28:33pm

re: #664 FurryOldGuyJeans

Because the FMSM has done one of the best propaganda jobs in all of history hiding just those very views from the general electorate.

More like "is doing", rather than "has done"....

670 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:28:56pm

re: #586 3echo9

Right so it's late term abortions that are extreme. Just for future reference, can someone tell me exactly on which day of pregnancy that an abortion transforms from run of the mill to extreme?

The onset of fetal viability.

671 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:30:09pm

re: #669 TheMatrix31

More like "is doing", rather than "has done"....

The damage has already been done to get the man elected, now is CYA.

672 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:30:18pm

re: #668 Sharmuta

What people do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody's damned business provided they're not infringing upon the rights of another. If someone wants to smoke cat poop- what business is it of yours?!

Smoking cat poop? Can you even do that? I knew a guy who smoked laundry sheets, but that was when he was out of money for pot.

673 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:30:23pm

re: #591 Hanoch

Does a government "tinker with the fabric of society" when it prohibits murder, theft, prostitution, etc., etc.? The notion that law is made without reference to morality is not correct.

See my #590.

674 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:31:15pm

re: #672 Altermite

Smoking cat poop? Can you even do that? I knew a guy who smoked laundry sheets, but that was when he was out of money for pot.

I was just trying to come up with a really outrageous example.

Dryer sheets? I guess we better ban those, huh? ///

675 TheMatrix31  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:31:28pm

re: #672 Altermite

Smoking cat poop? Can you even do that? I knew a guy who smoked laundry sheets, but that was when he was out of money for pot.

Confucious says, "Man who stands on toilet get high on pot".

676 jvic  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:32:09pm

re: #651 Sharmuta
All strong points and I agree about the War on Poverty.

Nevertheless, what about the growth of government under Bush and (I gather) Huckabee?

My guess is that the big-government religious right has made a coalition with with GOP spendocrats (squeezing out the limited-government Republicans), but maybe there's another interpretation or I'm misunderstanding something.

677 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:32:46pm

re: #676 jvic

Compassionate conservative = socialist republican.

678 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:32:56pm

re: #667 ladycatnip

#653 avanti

I mistrust people to the core who "use" people; your term pragmatic is a euphemistic term for manipulator and narcissist - both apt descriptions of Obama. .

I would not argue that he might be both, but many successful leaders are. Donald Trump comes to mind.

679 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:33:09pm

re: #667 ladycatnip

#653 avanti

I mistrust people to the core who "use" people; your term pragmatic is a euphemistic term for manipulator and narcissist - both apt descriptions of Obama. .

At least avanti has finally come out and admitted, to himself and us, that nearly all of what the man has done is to use people and organizations for his own personal and/or political gain.

680 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:33:32pm

'Hanoch', by the way, is a hardcore creationist who hasn't shown up at LGF in quite a while.

In case you were wondering why he's pimping the social conservative line.

681 ladycatnip  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:33:53pm

#665 ShanghaiEd

I agree, polls aren't gospel. The problem is that ID'ers are not just a weird handful of people. They're a major, steamrolling movement, funded by Republican philanthropists, as a "stealth" way of forcing Creationism into law and public school curricula. I can give you the links to the court case that proved ID and Creationism are the same philosophy with different labels, if you're interested.

Thanks for the offer, appreciate it. Speaking as a Christian, this "movement" has me outraged. I associate with large numbers of fellow believers and none of them embrace this. I believe personally that God created all things - whether He used evolution or Big Bang or whatever, makes no difference to me, and doesn't affect my standing with Him. It should be a non-issue, and I'm just sorry it isn't.

I've said on many other threads, the ACLU will stop it dead in its tracks. There's no way the NEA would put up with this either.

682 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:34:50pm

re: #609 Hanoch

Social conservatives would simply respond that the rights of unborn children are being violated and thus government has a right to restrict it. Perhaps a prohibitionist would argue that the rights of people killed by drunk drivers are being violated.

See my # 486.

683 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:34:51pm

re: #672 Altermite

Smoking cat poop? Can you even do that? I knew a guy who smoked laundry sheets, but that was when he was out of money for pot.

Dry it and you could.

Not that I have any first hand actual experience beyond having a cat who's litter box I have to clean out.

684 HDrepub  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:35:36pm

re: #653 avanti

All of his association were pragmatic. He joined the most connected church for political reasons, he met Ayers for the same reasons. He used them, and moved on.

And there you have defined Obama, although I'm sure you never meant to define him as such. He is a user, a shallow man, who has no principles whatsoever except the advancement of self, Barack Hussein Obama. A man who would make a deal with anyone, even those of questionable character, if it would promote his advancement.

685 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:36:01pm

re: #678 avanti

You really are not helping your case with the Trump example.

686 hous bin pharteen  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:36:55pm

What the hell? Who is reading my mind!

687 ointmentfly  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:37:07pm

I'd like to know why is it that the left in the country can have union rednecks and homosexuals under the same tent? How can they have trust funders and food stamp recipients? How can they have African Americans and ex Klan members? Why? Because the MSM does not bring any of the contradictions up. Yet the only things seen by anybody with regard to conservatism or the republican party is Rush or some evangelical church at full bore with holy rollers and speaking in tongues in full effect.

If social liberals and fiscal liberals are in the same tent, why can't their conservative opposites do the same? How can one be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal? Is that not an oxymoron?

My point is that the left is in control of the press. They are, and have been actively seeking to separate the party. I would say they have done such a good job that conservatives, or so-called conservatives have taken over with the bloodletting.

688 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:38:03pm

re: #684 HDrepub

And there you have defined Obama, although I'm sure you never meant to define him as such. He is a user, a shallow man, who has no principles whatsoever except the advancement of self, Barack Hussein Obama. A man who would make a deal with anyone, even those of questionable character, if it would promote his advancement.

Well, damn. You need to participate in the smack-downs here more often. ;)

689 ladycatnip  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:38:36pm

#678 avanti

#667 ladycatnip

#653 avanti

I mistrust people to the core who "use" people; your term pragmatic is a euphemistic term for manipulator and narcissist - both apt descriptions of Obama. .

I would not argue that he might be both, but many successful leaders are. Donald Trump comes to mind.

When they start doing things "for our own good" as Obama arrogantly believes, then that is the beginning of a soft tyranny (the term I believe is used or coined by Dennis Prager). And soft tyrannies can become brutal ones.

690 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:39:39pm

re: #630 dcbatlle

That's odd. The same people attacking the "religious Right" and calling for the party to return to the fiscally conservative "center" are also lambasting Rush Limbaugh.

Is there a greater fiscal conservative than Rush Limbaugh? No. Is Limbaugh a religious Right? No. Yet he's lumped in with the RR and "extremists" of the party by these so-called "moderates".

Which leads to me wonder, who exactly are these Republican "moderates" we keep hearing from, and more importantly-- what exactly do they want?

Aren't you one of the guys who routinely stealth downdings evolution threads, without ever commenting in them?

691 HDrepub  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:39:46pm

re: #686 hous bin pharteen

What the hell? Who is reading my mind!

Hey hous, how you been?

692 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:40:40pm

re: #680 Charles

'Hanoch', by the way, is a hardcore creationist who hasn't shown up at LGF in quite a while.

In case you were wondering why he's pimping the social conservative line.

That explains a few things.

693 cronus  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:41:26pm

re: #687 ointmentfly

How can one be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal? Is that not an oxymoron?

Not tracking, can you elaborate?

694 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:42:37pm

re: #679 FurryOldGuyJeans

At least avanti has finally come out and admitted, to himself and us, that nearly all of what the man has done is to use people and organizations for his own personal and/or political gain.

Not really, no one has asked me before. I would never had disagreed that he was ambitious and knew how to get ahead. Very few have climbed the ladder of success without stepping on a few toes on the way up, even more so in politics.
Everyone does it, McCain became sudden buddies with the evangelicals to get ahead, and BHO tried to also.

695 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:42:41pm

re: #686 hous bin pharteen

What the hell? Who is reading my mind!

Sorry! ;)

696 stuiec  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:43:20pm

re: #597 Sharmuta

It is within the scope of government to to prohibit such things as murder, theft, and rape because they violate the rights of others. Our laws reflect our values, not the other way around.

Hmm. I wonder, where do our rights come from?

697 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:44:19pm

re: #694 avanti

You have been asked many a time and you have equivocated and dissembled ad nauseum.

698 ointmentfly  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:44:39pm

re: #693 cronus
One must pay for many socially liberal programs ( needles, condoms, family planning, welfare etc,) I am sure we easily get into the tall grass on this point.

699 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:45:01pm

re: #685 FurryOldGuyJeans

You really are not helping your case with the Trump example.

I'm not a fan of Trump personally, but respect his business skills.

700 hous bin pharteen  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:46:14pm

re: #691 HDrepub

Getting better. Slow but sure. According to me, any way. The doc's and nurses are all amazed far I have come. It's nice to hear from you guys.

701 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:46:56pm

re: #677 Sharmuta

Compassionate conservative = socialist republican.

= another lost election.

702 stuiec  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:48:32pm

re: #615 ladycatnip

I'm a Jew, and I agree with what you wrote.

703 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:49:59pm

re: #699 avanti

I'm not a fan of Trump personally, but respect his business skills.

Can't say I do.re: #698 ointmentfly

One must pay for many socially liberal programs ( needles, condoms, family planning, welfare etc,) I am sure we easily get into the tall grass on this point.

One can support many socially liberal concepts without subsidizing them. The trick is not supporting legislation that makes them illeagel.

704 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:51:10pm
705 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:51:11pm

re: #684 HDrepub

And there you have defined Obama, although I'm sure you never meant to define him as such. He is a user, a shallow man, who has no principles whatsoever except the advancement of self, Barack Hussein Obama. A man who would make a deal with anyone, even those of questionable character, if it would promote his advancement.

Maybe he read Ayn Rands "Virtue of selfishness "

706 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:51:34pm

re: #687 ointmentfly

I'd like to know why is it that the left in the country can have union rednecks and homosexuals under the same tent? How can they have trust funders and food stamp recipients? How can they have African Americans and ex Klan members? Why? Because the MSM does not bring any of the contradictions up. Yet the only things seen by anybody with regard to conservatism or the republican party is Rush or some evangelical church at full bore with holy rollers and speaking in tongues in full effect.

If social liberals and fiscal liberals are in the same tent, why can't their conservative opposites do the same? How can one be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal? Is that not an oxymoron?

My point is that the left is in control of the press. They are, and have been actively seeking to separate the party. I would say they have done such a good job that conservatives, or so-called conservatives have taken over with the bloodletting.

Nope, it isn't. I'm a fiscal conservative (as opposed to both tax-and-spend Democrats and borrow-and-spend Republicans), a social liberal (root word liberty), and a foreign policy antijihadist, GWOT supporter, and constitutional democracy spreading advocate. We should not embrace the current socon/foreign policy hawk contradiction of working to increase personal freedoms abroad while simultaneously endeavoring to restrict them at home.

707 hous bin pharteen  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:52:16pm

re: #681 ladycatnip

I was taught the Big Bang Theory in Catholic High School. With all we have been through, there is no evidence of life in the whole galaxy. But on this planet, life (plants, animals, asshole's, etc) is teaming. Makes you think, don't it?

708 HDrepub  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:52:42pm

re: #700 hous bin pharteen

Getting better. Slow but sure. According to me, any way. The doc's and nurses are all amazed far I have come. It's nice to hear from you guys.

Good to hear from you too.

709 quickjustice  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:53:06pm

re: #496 Shr_Nfr

Since I'm not representing anyone in the Chrysler case, I didn't realize the government DIP financing was super-priority, priming even the secured lenders. Under those circumstances, they may get wiped out, but isn't the U.S. government then taking their property (collateral) through the use of raw economic power?

It seems like a horrible distortion of the bankruptcy system to me. There's no arms' length relationship between management and the DIP financing. I think I'd sue on Fifth Amendment takings grounds.

710 jvic  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:53:20pm

re: #677 Sharmuta

Compassionate conservative = socialist republican.

I would disagree with an open socialist more than I'd disagree with a compassionate conservative, but possibly I might trust the socialist more.

I'm with this:

My gut reaction is that ‘compassionate conservatism’ is more dishonest, and ultimately more pernicious, than Clinton’s and Obama’s shticks.

The following comment too.

711 stuiec  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:53:23pm

re: #551 ShanghaiEd

PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.


There are a number of Americans who believe that God became incarnate in the form of a human being in order to experience what it was to be born, to live and to die. These same people believe that the self-same human being, after being dead for three days, spontaneously re-animated himself.

Has Gallup done a recent poll on how many Americans hold that belief, and how they reconcile it with scientific fact? Shouldn't the Republican Party be very, very careful about being associated with such Resurrectionists?

712 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:54:00pm

re: #687 ointmentfly

How can one be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal? Is that not an oxymoron?

Absolutely not. If one believes in individual rights, then one would believe in property rights as a part of that- property in this case being the fruits of one's labor. At the same time- individual rights means socially being liberal in that you have the right to make whatever decision within the law that are available to you, and not interfering with the choices of others that are likewise within the law but different from your choices.

713 ladycatnip  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:54:09pm

#702

Thank you, stuiec.

714 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:55:18pm

re: #704 Iron Fist

Thanks, Cuz.

715 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:56:12pm

re: #696 stuiec

Hmm. I wonder, where do our rights come from?

Whether or not we admit it, they fundamentally issue from mutual consent between people who both refuse to dictate to their fellow citizens and refuse to be dictated to BY them, and who will even campaign to stop or prevent others from being coercively dictated to.

That is the uniquely American synthesis of the thesis and antithesis in Hegel's master/slave dialectic; the self-reliant, rugged individualist.

716 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:56:23pm

re: #681 ladycatnip

Here's a link to a great overview of the stealth "Intelligent Design" movement:
[Link: ncseweb.org...]

And, a good link for keeping track of how active and pervasive the ID movement is, in school districts and courtrooms across the U.S., largely "under the radar" of our daily news. Scary...
[Link: ncseweb.org...]

If your congregation is not on board with young-earth creationism, the Religious Right considers you all to be liberals and blasphemers. And for eight years, these Religious Right leaders had monthly, mostly secret, meetings with Rove and other high-level administration officials to advise them on policy. Scary.

717 HDrepub  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:56:29pm

re: #709 quickjustice

Since I'm not representing anyone in the Chrysler case, I didn't realize the government DIP financing was super-priority, priming even the secured lenders. Under those circumstances, they may get wiped out, but isn't the U.S. government then taking their property (collateral) through the use of raw economic power?

It seems like a horrible distortion of the bankruptcy system to me. There's no arms' length relationship between management and the DIP financing. I think I'd sue on Fifth Amendment takings grounds.

IIRC that is taking place as we speak, although I'm not sure if it was on the Fifth Amendment.

718 Altermite  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:57:45pm

re: #707 hous bin pharteen

I was taught the Big Bang Theory in Catholic High School. With all we have been through, there is no evidence of life in the whole galaxy. But on this planet, life (plants, animals, asshole's, etc) is teaming. Makes you think, don't it?

This is probably attributable to it being darn hard to detect life from several million kilometers away. Odds are very good that life developed on these other planets- we just can't see it.

Even then, we do find occasional possible indicators in this meteorite or that, though nothing beyond fragments would conceivably survive reentry.

719 HDrepub  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:57:50pm

re: #705 avanti

Maybe he read Ayn Rands "Virtue of selfishness "

More likely he took lessons from Al Gore, or John Kerry.

720 hous bin pharteen  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:58:57pm

re: #708 HDrepub

..and you too. I like this place. Since you can have different views and opinions and all that is required is thoughtful argument.

721 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:59:22pm

re: #716 ShanghaiEd

I live in the Seattle area and and am "profoundly blessed" with getting to hear the drivel and pablum from both sides of the spectrum on the issue.

722 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:01:02pm

re: #699 avanti

Business skills of unbridled greed. You respect that?

723 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:01:32pm
724 ladycatnip  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:01:35pm

#704 Iron Fist

Personally, I don't think the government has the right to tell you what you can put in your body, be it piss or poison. The government can certainly regulate what you can and can't do under the influence (i.e.driving), but that would be where I would see the end of governmental authority. The truth is that drugs being illegal simply creates a black market where the only sanctions available to compel "good faith" are violent ones. If somemone sells you a pound of bad heoin, what can you do? Sue them? No, obviously not.

Good points. I took a class from an AF nurse and this was included in the subject matter. From her perspective as a health care professional, there is more downside to legalization, the first being the huge cost of drug rehab; the destruction drugs to do the brain and body; crime stats increase in areas of high drug use, etc. On the other hand, putting drug addicts in prison is not the answer either. Tough subject with no easy answers, but her opinion was that to legalize drugs would cause more harm than good.

725 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:02:14pm

re: #711 stuiec

There are a number of Americans who believe that God became incarnate in the form of a human being in order to experience what it was to be born, to live and to die. These same people believe that the self-same human being, after being dead for three days, spontaneously re-animated himself.

Has Gallup done a recent poll on how many Americans hold that belief, and how they reconcile it with scientific fact? Shouldn't the Republican Party be very, very careful about being associated with such Resurrectionists?

I don't know anybody who has a problem with
Resurrectionists's beliefs unless they want to teach Resurrectionism as fact in public schools. Do you?

726 ointmentfly  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:02:53pm

re: #706 Salamantis<
re: #712 Sharmuta

I see the "social liberal" as a different animal. One who believes in the liberal use of government to take guns and to redistribute wealth among other projects. Classic liberals and progressives of today are not interested in liberty by any stretch.

727 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:04:15pm

re: #716 ShanghaiEd

Oops. My second link should be this one...
[Link: ncseweb.org...]

728 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:05:59pm
729 Million Dollar Man  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:06:30pm

re: #726 ointmentfly

I see the "social liberal" as a different animal. One who believes in the liberal use of government to take guns and to redistribute wealth among other projects. Classic liberals and progressives of today are not interested in liberty by any stretch.

Not all liberals favor taking away guns. There's even a blog called Armed Liberal, after all ;-)

730 hous bin pharteen  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:07:25pm

re: #718 Altermite

It is always a possibility. If I did well in science class, it would fun to keep looking ;-] But no, I majored in History. Then when I got a real job when I left the Army, I re-uped in something useful. Business Management.
But I love the show Big Bang Theory. But I used to like Miami Vice, but Metro-Dade PD would not hire me. :-{

731 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:07:28pm

re: #718 Altermite

This is probably attributable to it being darn hard to detect life from several million kilometers away. Odds are very good that life developed on these other planets- we just can't see it.

Even then, we do find occasional possible indicators in this meteorite or that, though nothing beyond fragments would conceivably survive reentry.

Also there is the time factor. humans have been on this planet a mere moment in the history of the universe. Intelligent life could come and go in the blink of a eye on this or other planets and we'd miss each other.
Plus, there is no real evolutionary drive toward intelligence, some species work fine for millions of years without evolving.

732 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:07:33pm

re: #635 Salamantis

Since roughly 50% of first marriages and 75% of subsequent marriages already end in divorce, and fully a third of American children are currently being born out of wedlock; I fail to see what damage allowing gay civil unions could possibly do to the institution of marriage, over and above what damage heterosexuals are already inflicting upon it themselves.

Personally, I see the legal "gay civil union' recognition of enduring committed monogamous homosexual relationships as pro-family.

re: #346 Simply Me

[P]eople who say they support traditional marriage usually do support traditional marriage. They will be very concerned about children born out of wedlock and very concerned about divorce, etc. For them (including me) it is a constellation of issues around marriage as the structure for child-rearing as the basic building block of society


Honestly, Salamantis, from the perspective of someone who supports traditional marriage, you argument is like a rapist coming into the house after a woman has been domestically abused by her husband, saying "I fail to see what is wrong with me raping this woman as she has already been so badly beaten by her own husband."

It is clear that you couldn't care less about what happens to the children; all you care about is your own personal "liberty". Using the excuse that the institution is already damaged is so specious!

733 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:07:58pm

re: #721 FurryOldGuyJeans

I live in the Seattle area and and am "profoundly blessed" with getting to hear the drivel and pablum from both sides of the spectrum on the issue.

Odd, that the ID movement would select Seattle as its headquarters. How high-profile are they, in the community?

734 Hanoch  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:09:05pm

re: #680 Charles

If you would prefer that those who are socially conservative not post their views on your blog, just say so. I don't think there is any need to be rude.

735 formercorpsman  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:09:13pm

re: #653 avanti

Avanti, that is a pretty wide strike zone your giving him there.

Just as Charles has done exhausting work in showing the nefarious relationships of dangerous, and disgusting people within the circles on the right, a passive dismissal of his associations are not up to par.

I don't know if you have ever been over to Zombie's site, or really caught up on the "Prairie Fire" work, but Ayres articulated the idea of having to deal with an approximate number of about 25 million people who might not go willingly towards his ideas of social utopia.

Add in the Farrakhan ties through the church, & you are comfortable making politically expedient excuses for him using them as a stepping stone.

It don't wash. Wrong is wrong.

736 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:10:09pm

re: #726 ointmentfly

I see the "social liberal" as a different animal. One who believes in the liberal use of government to take guns and to redistribute wealth among other projects. Classic liberals and progressives of today are not interested in liberty by any stretch.

Nope. I'm pro-2nd Amendment (I own seven guns), and embrace equality of opportunity rather than equality of result. And I'm foursquare for maximizing personal freedoms.

I get to define what I mean by social liberal, since I claim to be one. You, who claim not to be one, do not get to define it for me.

737 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:10:34pm

re: #722 FurryOldGuyJeans

Business skills of unbridled greed. You respect that?

Yes, greed is good, read Ayn Rand. Greed in business is almost a prerequisite to success.

738 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:11:08pm

re: #640 ShanghaiEd

I'm not pro-witch, but I think they are entitled to the rule of law instead of vigilante justice. Some reporters discovered that the "witches" the visiting Wasilla pastor bragged about vanquishing were a couple of crabby older ladies who were critical of the church's leadership.


Do you have a link to support that? I provided a link to show the problem of actual "witchcraft" in Africa.

739 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:11:14pm

re: #732 Simply Me

So- you think preventing gays from getting married will promote children's welfare because same sex couples will suddenly stop divorcing?

It is the welfare state that has undermined the traditional family, not gays.

740 cronus  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:11:40pm

re: #732 Simply Me

Honestly, Salamantis, from the perspective of someone who supports traditional marriage, you argument is like a rapist coming into the house after a woman has been domestically abused by her husband, saying "I fail to see what is wrong with me raping this woman as she has already been so badly beaten by her own husband."

It is clear that you couldn't care less about what happens to the children; all you care about is your own personal "liberty". Using the excuse that the institution is already damaged is so specious!

I await your running tally on the number of heterosexual marriages ruined by gay unions.

741 cowbellallen  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:11:40pm

So, something I've been thinking about lately....

Other than Goldwater and Reagan, under what leadership has the Republican party seriously been the party of liberty, limited government, and low taxes?

It seems to me like the party was hijacked by those 2 and every other moment was typical Republican behavior. I don't know that for sure, I wasn't even alive when Reagan was president. Maybe I'm missing something here.

742 Born Again Republican  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:13:43pm

It's going to be very difficult to back away from the social issues. I remember the debate hosts stuck on these kind of questions. And the media will hound the Republicans when they discover we consider it our weakness. We definitely need a strategy to turn it to our advantage. Like Reagan did so beautifully.

743 ointmentfly  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:16:27pm

re: #736 Salamantis

By my definition, you are not a social liberal. Unless you are willing to lock arms with Ted Kennedy. Ready?

744 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:17:10pm

re: #734 Hanoch

If you would prefer that those who are socially conservative not post their views on your blog, just say so. I don't think there is any need to be rude.

How was Charles rude?

745 TheMatrix31  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:18:14pm

Is anyone else having mounds of trouble loading "ding" menus and individual comments in separate windows?

746 ointmentfly  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:18:46pm

re: #739 Sharmuta

Maybe the state is saving gays from themselves when it comes to divorce.

747 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:19:02pm

re: #732 Simply Me

Honestly, Salamantis, from the perspective of someone who supports traditional marriage, you argument is like a rapist coming into the house after a woman has been domestically abused by her husband, saying "I fail to see what is wrong with me raping this woman as she has already been so badly beaten by her own husband."

This is one of the most egregiously false and malicious attempts at an analogy that I have read in my time at LGF. You are, unbelievably, endeavoring to equate homosexuals who want gay civil unions that include the same legal rights as heterosexual marriages with rapists. Hell; they're HOMOSEXUALS; they just wanna have consensual sex with EACH OTHER!

It is clear that you couldn't care less about what happens to the children; all you care about is your own personal "liberty". Using the excuse that the institution is already damaged is so specious!

It isn't a matter of 'the children'; a lot of heterosexuals have been doing quite well fucking up their children as it is, without trying to blame it on the quiet gay couple down the corner. Your kids only run into them on Halloween, when they hand out trick-or-treat candy like everyone else.

And how interesting that you would accuse me of being gay (not that there's anything wrong with that); I happen to be straight; I just don't happen to be narrow.

I suppose you think all ERA supporters were female, and all civil rights marchers were black...

748 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:19:39pm

re: #746 ointmentfly

Maybe the state is saving gays from themselves when it comes to divorce.

Maybe they should save all of us from divorce then and ban marriage altogether.

[eye roll]

749 avanti  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:20:00pm

re: #735 formercorpsman

I know the the ties to Ayers were limited, and personally don't care much about his preacher. Even Palin's church had some strange stuff going on, but I don't fault her. As hard as the right hammered those associations, it did not take hold. Hannity will still be talking about in 2012 and still, few will care.

750 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:21:15pm

re: #734 Hanoch

If you would prefer that those who are socially conservative not post their views on your blog, just say so. I don't think there is any need to be rude.

Just stating a fact. You're a creationist, and that goes a long way toward explaining why you're also very much in line with the other tenets of social conservatism.

751 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:22:07pm

re: #656 Salamantis

The Taliban and the Saudi Muttawa also see a moral society as the ultimate end of politics; they just have a different, in some but not all respects, and in degree rather than in essence in others, definition of morality than do those opposed to abortion and gay civil unions and in favor of creationism in public madrassas schools.

Salamantis,
That is so over the top! Have you been drinking (or smoking something)?

First of all, you are lumping together creationism, which is not an issue of morality, with the issues of abortion and traditional marriage, which are issues of morality. And then you have the gall to imply that people who don't share your opinions on these issues are comparable to the Taliban!

How would you like it if I started equating your views to the North American Man Boy Love Association? They argue for the freedom of children to make their own decisions about having sex and with whom to have sex. And they accomplish their goals in part by progressively lowering the age of consent.

The reality is that no ideology is desirable when pushed to the extreme and all ideologues are dangerous if they can't moderate their ideology with common sense.

752 hous bin pharteen  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:23:10pm

Two males or two females want to become permanent couples, I do not mind. But calling it marriage, I don't like. It gives marriage a bad name. Being 'gay' is very odd. Do you become the "female" once a weak? Or all the time? Just asking! No one has to argue about it!

753 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:23:22pm

re: #743 ointmentfly

By my definition, you are not a social liberal. Unless you are willing to lock arms with Ted Kennedy. Ready?

Then I don't think you are a social conservative unless you are willing to lock arms with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and Alan Keyes.

What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.

754 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:23:59pm

re: #79 Sharmuta

Dear GOP-

The fiscal conservatives of this party are begging you, please!, to get back to Goldwater conservatism.

Sincerely, Sharmuta

May billions of up-dings shower upon you from the heavens.

755 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:24:45pm

re: #738 Simply Me

Do you have a link to support that? I provided a link to show the problem of actual "witchcraft" in Africa.

Yes, I read your link, and human sacrifices are definitely not good. The "witch" that Palin's guest pastor ran out of town, though, was determined to be a witch because an unusual number of car accidents happened near her house. I'm not making this up:
[Link: santitafarella.wordpress.com...]

756 ladycatnip  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:25:15pm

#716 ShanhaiEd

If your congregation is not on board with young-earth creationism, the Religious Right considers you all to be liberals and blasphemers. And for eight years, these Religious Right leaders had monthly, mostly secret, meetings with Rove and other high-level administration officials to advise them on policy. Scary.

I attend a very large church in CA, and after 30 years in it have never heard one sermon on either creation or ID. In fact I took a seminary class called Science and the Origins; the Big Bang was taught, not YE and the class was taught by a Cal Tech professor - it was fascinating.

Guess you can say I'm definitely not on board with the RR.

757 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:25:25pm

re: #746 ointmentfly

Maybe the state is saving gays from themselves when it comes to divorce.

I once heard a guy say that he supported gay civil unions because he thought gays in America should have the same right to be miserable that straights here have...;~)

758 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:25:35pm
759 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:26:33pm

re: #190 Charles

Look who immediately showed up in the comments to the Sensuous Curmudgeon's post: Richard L. Kent, Esq., The World's Angriest Creationist and Totally Obsessed LGF Stalker!

That guy is a hoot.

Cato's Law of Web Discourse, Part VII, section a, corollary 3: Lawyers who insist on "Esq." outside of a legal context always have ego trouble. See corollaries 1 and 2 re MDs and PhDs.

760 hous bin pharteen  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:27:55pm

re: #753 Salamantis

How about spaghetti sauce? ;-]

761 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:30:17pm

re: #756 ladycatnip

Guess you can say I'm definitely not on board with the RR.

A lot of Christians aren't.

762 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:30:33pm

re: #661 Salamantis

What is eminently unconservative is to abandon and forsake the conservative stance's traditional alignment with the individual personal freedom to make one's own private life decisions, and instead to embrace the legislation of collectivist moral mandates upon vast masses of unwilling citizens in such matters.


No, the conservative's traditional stance has been to be cautious in overturning social traditions. The alignment with personal liberty does not mean rolling over and playing dead to those who are not concerned with the long term good of the society.

And vast masses? What are you talking about? Are you saying that the vast masses want gay marriage and abortion and that a small minority is seeking to impose bans on these practices? The majority does not want gay marriage. A small minority is seeking to overturn the traditional definition of marriage. And with regard to abortion, it is pretty even now. I posted the latest Pew poll earlier, but here it is again.

763 hous bin pharteen  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:31:33pm

See you later, gators!

764 cronus  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:32:41pm

Several hundred gay couples have applied for marriage licenses in Iowa. Number of heterosexual marriages destroyed...0. Number of children harmed...wait for it ........0

765 ladycatnip  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:32:48pm

758 Iron Fist

I do hear what you're saying and appreciated the points you made earlier - I agree that the War on Drugs has been a joke. Not sure there's an easy answer to this problem.

766 stuiec  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:32:48pm

re: #725 ShanghaiEd

I don't know anybody who has a problem with
Resurrectionists's beliefs unless they want to teach Resurrectionism as fact in public schools. Do you?

See the new thread on Mike Pence. Apparently one's personal beliefs about religious matters are now the touchstone for one's qualification for office.

It's one thing to oppose the teaching of religious precepts in public schools. It's another to turn that into a witch-hunt to purge the public square of "Creationists."

Or are people bad and evil merely for holding religious beliefs that don't square with modern science?

Because that would be bigoted and, frankly, un-American.

767 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:35:04pm

re: #668 Sharmuta

What people do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody's damned business provided they're not infringing upon the rights of another. If someone wants to smoke cat poop- what business is it of yours?!


I don't think the Republican Party will benefit from a campaign advocating smoking cat poop.

768 ointmentfly  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:35:55pm

re: #753 Salamantis

C'mon.... were are rapping on LGF and you are willing to hang with Ted Kennedy before the Christian zealot trio? Last time I checked they were all small government guys.......

//// opening wide for Charles to cram a bunch of Creationist crap in my piehole...

769 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:36:13pm

If the Republican party can't survive without the nose-under-the-bedsheets types, then I can survive without the Republican party.

770 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:37:34pm

re: #751 Simply Me

Salamantis,
That is so over the top! Have you been drinking (or smoking something)?

No, not yet; but a beer ain't a bad idea...;~)

First of all, you are lumping together creationism, which is not an issue of morality, with the issues of abortion and traditional marriage, which are issues of morality. And then you have the gall to imply that people who don't share your opinions on these issues are comparable to the Taliban!

That's funny, creationists constantly rail that evolution entails degenerate morality...but people who wish to restrict the freedoms of others to comply with their personal moral codes only differ in which moral codes they wish to enforce and to what degrees they are willing to go in order to enforce them.

How would you like it if I started equating your views to the North American Man Boy Love Association? They argue for the freedom of children to make their own decisions about having sex and with whom to have sex. And they accomplish their goals in part by progressively lowering the age of consent.

It would be easily refuted by noting that I am in favor of these freedoms only for consenting adults, who have achieved the level of maturity necessary to give informed and responsible consent. But it is precisely those adults to whom you would deny moral choices.

The reality is that no ideology is desirable when pushed to the extreme and all ideologues are dangerous if they can't moderate their ideology with common sense.

But people should monitor and moderate their ideologies, and their actions, for themselves, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others (and there is no way that an ideology can so infringe in the absence of some action, which is why freedom of speech and religion are enshrined in our Constitution). If you disapprove of the ideologies and non-infringing actions of others, you have - and should have - the choice not to hang around them; what you should NOT have is the power to force them to only act as YOU see fit.

771 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:37:40pm

re: #741 cowbellallen

So, something I've been thinking about lately....

Other than Goldwater and Reagan, under what leadership has the Republican party seriously been the party of liberty, limited government, and low taxes?

It seems to me like the party was hijacked by those 2 and every other moment was typical Republican behavior. I don't know that for sure, I wasn't even alive when Reagan was president. Maybe I'm missing something here.

Hallelujah! Somebody has seen through the spin. Reagan was not the ultimate incarnation of the Republican movement, but a significant departure from its modern ideology, in a number of ways. I wish I had a buncha updings to give.

Don't let word get out, though. Such apostasy is dangerous, these days.
/

772 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:39:24pm

re: #758 Iron Fist

OTOH, the social stigma of drug use and addiction would probably fade, although I doubt that some stigma would be retained for some time into the future.

Hmm- I doubt that. There is still a social stigma to being a drunk bum out on the street, to being an alcoholic, getting a DUI, and a host of other related issues concerning alcohol abuse.

773 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:39:41pm

re: #680 Charles

'Hanoch', by the way, is a hardcore creationist who hasn't shown up at LGF in quite a while.

In case you were wondering why he's pimping the social conservative line.


Am I the only social conservative who isn't a creationist?
Maybe the hardcore social conservatives are creationists. And people who are OK with some abortion and civil unions are moderate social conservatives, who also tend not to be creationists.

774 ShanghaiEd  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:42:33pm

re: #766 stuiec

See the new thread on Mike Pence. Apparently one's personal beliefs about religious matters are now the touchstone for one's qualification for office.

It's one thing to oppose the teaching of religious precepts in public schools. It's another to turn that into a witch-hunt to purge the public square of "Creationists."

Or are people bad and evil merely for holding religious beliefs that don't square with modern science?

Because that would be bigoted and, frankly, un-American.

Thanks...I haven't seen the Pence thread; I'll go look. In the meantime, I can answer your question, though: "Are people bad and evil merely for holding religious beliefs that don't square with modern science?"

Of course not. The only evil comes when they try to use government to enforce those beliefs on others. Repeat as necessary.

775 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:43:29pm

re: #767 Simply Me

They will benefit from keeping their noses out of people's private business. Still don't know what business it is of yours or anyone else what I do in the privacy of my home while leaving my fellow citizens alone.

776 jvic  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:46:15pm

re: #651 Sharmuta

...When you think back in our recent history, when did our society start getting "ill", as some say? Many of the RRs point to the removal of prayer from schools, but I don't think that's it. I think the cause is the war on poverty....

The Great Boomer Tantrum of the 1960s also playeds a major role.

777 Dr. Shalit  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:46:31pm

OK Republican Lizardim -

#1. Like Me - Late Comer - 2008 to vote in the Pres. Primary.

When it comes to Social Issues - BE CONSTITUTIONAL (10th Amendment).
Let the States Decide. We still have a Constitution, don't we?

-S-

778 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:50:48pm

re: #762 Simply Me

No, the conservative's traditional stance has been to be cautious in overturning social traditions. The alignment with personal liberty does not mean rolling over and playing dead to those who are not concerned with the long term good of the society.

It means that you are free to discuss your concerns with them, if they are likewise willing; it does NOT mean that you should be able to coerce the unwilling into doing things your way rather than theirs.

And vast masses? What are you talking about? Are you saying that the vast masses want gay marriage and abortion and that a small minority is seeking to impose bans on these practices? The majority does not want gay marriage. A small minority is seeking to overturn the traditional definition of marriage. And with regard to abortion, it is pretty even now. I posted the latest Pew poll earlier, but here it is again.

I'm saying that there are millions of both gays and straights who desire gay committed monogamous relationships to have equal legal status with those of straights, and millions of both men and women who desire the option of legal abortion to remain. Millions sounds like 'vast masses' to me.

As if the numbers matter. As if we should be free to deny civil rights to Americans of Australian aboriginal extraction simply because there aren't many of them here...

I see your poll, and raise you one:

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

779 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:54:41pm

re: #768 ointmentfly

C'mon.... were are rapping on LGF and you are willing to hang with Ted Kennedy before the Christian zealot trio? Last time I checked they were all small government guys.......

//// opening wide for Charles to cram a bunch of Creationist crap in my piehole...

I am not willing to hang with Ted Kennedy; however, I can easily see your being perfectly willing to hang with Pat Robertson, Alan Keyes, and the corpse of Jerry Falwell.

780 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:55:26pm

re: #724 ladycatnip
When I was a child my mother told me how she became addicted to morphine when she was in the hospital with a broken leg from a skiing accident. She was telling me how easy it was to be addicted and how when they cut her off from the morphine she would lie to the nurses to try to get them to give her more morphine. She said she would have stolen if she could have gotten out of the hospital bed. It really convinced me that people who get hooked loose loose their moral decision making ability. So of course they will try to convince us to legalize the drugs they have become addicted to.

781 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:57:06pm

re: #134 Simply Me

When we say “sex,” we mean topics like abstinence, promiscuity, homosexuality, pre-marital relations, contraception, sodomy, nudity, pornography, masturbation, same-sex marriage, sex education, abortion, and morning-after pills. Does that list sound familiar? It should, because those are the issues that too often dominate your campaigns.


This seems like an exageration. Have pe-marital relations, contraception and masturbation been mentioned in the party platform?

I do not see "issues that too often dominate your campaigns" as being anything close to the same as "party platform", and I think The Curmudgeon is correct in (his/her?) observation here.

782 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:59:19pm

re: #735 formercorpsman


I don't know if you have ever been over to Zombie's site, or really caught up on the "Prairie Fire" work, but Ayres articulated the idea of having to deal with an approximate number of about 25 million people who might not go willingly towards his ideas of social utopia.


I've been to Zombie's site but I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you give a link and explain this more, please?

783 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:03:44pm

re: #780 Simply Me

When I was a child my mother told me how she became addicted to morphine when she was in the hospital with a broken leg from a skiing accident. She was telling me how easy it was to be addicted and how when they cut her off from the morphine she would lie to the nurses to try to get them to give her more morphine. She said she would have stolen if she could have gotten out of the hospital bed. It really convinced me that people who get hooked loose loose their moral decision making ability. So of course they will try to convince us to legalize the drugs they have become addicted to.

One of the better reasons to legalize marijuana is that if it were legal, people wouldn't have to resort to frequenting dealers who also sell harder drugs, like crack, smack and crank, in order to get it; they could just hop down to the corner pot store.

It would solve a lot of the present problems between cops and citizens, too, the ones that begin when cops bust decent, responsible and respectable friends or family for casually smoking dope and folks begin to resent and distrust them, and only get worse when the cops sense this resent and distrust, and reply in kind.

784 Hanoch  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:05:01pm

re: #750 Charles

Well, I'm not so sure you are right about the "creationist" thing. If you mean I believe G-d created the world, you are right. If, on the other hand, you are referring to a position on evolution, you are wrong. The truth is I don't pretend to have the expertise to evaluate the claims of evolution and would thus consider myself a somewhat skeptical agnostic on the issue.

As far as the public school issue, I just don't see it as a big deal that a teacher might suggest intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of the universe (nor do I consider it a big deal if they don't). In my view that alone does not rise to the level of teaching religion--it is merely postulating one possibility for the origin of the universe. (If a teacher went beyond that and began discussing religious beliefs and doctrine, that would, of course, be a much different story, and I would object to that).

The bottom line for me is, when you consider that the schools are being used to indoctrinate kids with all sorts of leftist drivel, and that most kids who graduate from high school seem unbelievable uneducated, I think we have much bigger problems.

I hope that helps in your labeling process.

785 Dr. Shalit  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:07:01pm

re: #780 Simply Me

Simply Me -

I hear and WELL understand the situation. NOT in my upbringing, thankfully.
I have lived with and know some folks who "might" be addicts of one sort or another.
In almost very case, seems to me that if their "stuff" was as available/affordable as Gourmet Coffee, there would have been little if any problem.
Aspirationally, I would prefer that there were NO DRUGS, including mine, the usual "A.T.C." Habituations.
Realistically - this will NOT happen. Question is - where do we go from there?

-S-

786 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:08:12pm

re: #783 Salamantis
Well, my mother was glad that she got off the morphine what she was stuck on the hospital bed in traction. She said the addiction just took her over and she wasn't herself.

787 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:11:13pm

re: #781 Slumbering Behemoth

I do not see "issues that too often dominate your campaigns" as being anything close to the same as "party platform", and I think The Curmudgeon is correct in (his/her?) observation here.


OK, I only said party platform because that was being discussed in some of the the early few hundred comments on the thread. I wasn't trying to switch the subject.
Curmudgeon came up with one example of one candidate mentioning premarital sex and agreed that there was nothing about masturbation, right?

788 Liberal Classic  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:13:21pm

re: #687 ointmentfly

How can one be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal? Is that not an oxymoron?

Because if I support reduced taxes on inheritance I must necessarily oppose gay marriage?

re: #726 ointmentfly


Classic liberals and progressives of today are not interested in liberty by any stretch.

I beg to differ.

789 Simply Me  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:21:36pm

re: #783 Salamantis
I know marijuana is famous for making people eat to much (the munchies) and for becoming paranoid. But does marijuana tend to loosen inhibitions about lying and stealing? It does seem to loosen inhibitions about trying other drugs. But are there any studies? Maybe in the Netherlands?

I did have a woman in the Netherlands tell me what a disaster legalizing drugs was. The town she lived in was ruined. But that is anecdotal and I can't even remember the name of the town.

790 Liberal Classic  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:22:59pm

re: #782 Simply Me

I've been to Zombie's site but I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you give a link and explain this more, please?

Hope this helps:
[Link: www.zombietime.com...]

791 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:25:00pm

re: #789 Simply Me

It most certainly does not! Addiction can take many forms, you know. Not just drugs. Some people are addicted to sex, or gambling, etc. They might even lie to get those things, or they may not. You going to outlaw those things too?

792 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:29:05pm

Yeah- we should outlaw sex because some people become addicted to it. This would also solve the issue of children being harmed by divorce and gay marriage. It's a two-fer!

793 Max Darkside  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:33:55pm

The Constitution, the rule of law, national defense, free enterprise, limited government, low taxes, balanced budgets, and individual rights seems like a good list to me. What party stands for those? I'll sign up.

794 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:35:45pm

re: #793 Max Darkside

The Constitution, the rule of law, national defense, free enterprise, limited government, low taxes, balanced budgets, and individual rights seems like a good list to me. What party stands for those? I'll sign up.

Good question.

795 Max Darkside  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:36:50pm

re: #792 Sharmuta

Yeah- we should outlaw sex because some people become addicted to it.


"some people"? Hehehee...

796 SFGoth  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:37:42pm

re: #707 hous bin pharteen

I was taught the Big Bang Theory in Catholic High School. With all we have been through, there is no evidence of life in the whole galaxy. But on this planet, life (plants, animals, asshole's, etc) is teaming. Makes you think, don't it?

First of all, if there is no evidence of life in the whole galaxy (troll), then "you are just a thought that someone somewhere somehow feels you should be here". If there is no life in the universe, I'll believe in god.

Beyond that, ummm, no. The Greek triremes couldn't reach the New World. Guess America doesn't exist. Your supposition is stupid.

797 realwest  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:39:04pm

Hey y'all - this has probably been posted somewhere before today, I got it from JWF, but it's really worth reading: [Link: blogs.abcnews.com...]

798 SFGoth  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:39:28pm

re: #696 stuiec

Hmm. I wonder, where do our rights come from?

From the barrel of a gun; or nowadays, from the purses of thousands of mad women who will wreak havoc when Filene's Basement has its final chapter 7 sale.

799 Max Darkside  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:42:51pm

re: #796 SFGoth

The probability of life elsewhere is about 100%. We are not alone. We may think we are special, until that big-ass-teroid comes by and in a blink, we are gone.

800 Max Darkside  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:44:36pm

re: #797 realwest

Hey y'all - this has probably been posted somewhere before today, I got it from JWF, but it's really worth reading: [Link: blogs.abcnews.com...]

Chicago thugs, is all, just doing biz Chicago style.

801 SFGoth  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:45:01pm

re: #183 Simply Me

I can't support a Republican Party that has been taken over by radical libertarians who advocate legalizing marijuana, [ ] That is selfish short term thinking that ignores the long run destructive consequences for society.


I can't support a Republican Party that refuses to outlaw alcohol. That is selfish short term thinking that ignores the long run destructive consequences for society. I can't support a party that refuses to have its leaders, who cheat on their wives, executed. We need to set the right standard for the children - you cheat on your solemn vow to your wife and god, you die.

802 SFGoth  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:46:23pm

re: #799 Max Darkside

The probability of life elsewhere is about 100%. We are not alone. We may think we are special, until that big-ass-teroid comes by and in a blink, we are gone.

I agree. I like to say: if I could know whether there is a god or intelligent life elsewhere in the universe; I'd go with the latter, because if there isn't, then there is a god.

803 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:46:31pm

re: #787 Simply Me


Curmudgeon came up with one example of one candidate mentioning premarital sex and agreed that there was nothing about masturbation, right?

Sorry, I see the question mark but I don't quite understand what you're asking. Could you rephrase?

804 BLBfootballs  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:47:23pm

re: #750 Charles

Just stating a fact. You're a creationist, and that goes a long way toward explaining why you're also very much in line with the other tenets of social conservatism.

I can't speak for Hanoch but IMO that's an inaccurate generalization if applied to SociCons as a whole. On a philosophical level I see no reason why SociConism needs to be linked to belief in Creationism. (It certainly ain't for me and I know many people for whom that is so.)

805 Max Darkside  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:01:52pm

re: #802 SFGoth

I agree. I like to say: if I could know whether there is a god or intelligent life elsewhere in the universe; I'd go with the latter, because if there isn't, then there is a god.

These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

806 SFGoth  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:02:47pm

re: #741 cowbellallen

So, something I've been thinking about lately....

Other than Goldwater and Reagan, under what leadership has the Republican party seriously been the party of liberty, limited government, and low taxes?

It seems to me like the party was hijacked by those 2 and every other moment was typical Republican behavior. I don't know that for sure, I wasn't even alive when Reagan was president. Maybe I'm missing something here.

You have a good point there. However, those two (and Goldwater never became president) were the only party leaders who had any charisma and thus did not have to feel the need to be liked by passing like-me legislation. Nixon - ugly - and had to found the modern federal bureaucracy to take the heat off Watergate, Ford - bumbler who really didn't do anything but try to inspire an inflation-whipped country without a clue; Bush I - maybe a WWII hero, but a White House wimp, just oozed rubber spine and signed that pernicious ADA; Bush II - need I say more?

807 Max Darkside  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:04:01pm

re: #804 BLBfootballs

On a philosophical level I see no reason why SociConism needs to be linked to belief in Creationism.


Conservativism is not linked to Creationism. Many conservatives are not Creationists, but many Creationists are conservative. That is where people get confused.

808 SFGoth  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:07:22pm

re: #751 Simply Me

How would you like it if I started equating your views to the North American Man Boy Love Association?


Awwwright, he called NAMBLA. Thread's over. Move along. [and let me finish my dinner in peace]

809 kaymad  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:08:04pm

Who gives a flying flip about intelligent design? Is this really the burning issue of our time? Really? And homosexuality? That's another burning issue in the republican party? Because it seems to me it''s Gay people constantly blathering on about it, it's the liberals constantly blathering on about it. It's the media constantly making an issue of it and it's judges overruling the will of the people. I'm sorry I think since the survival of a species depends on male/female interaction, that THAT puts the male/female relationship in a whole nother catagory than same sex couples. I could give a crap what you do in your bedroom, but lets not pretend same sex coupling could have the same damn outcome as heterosexual coupling. Oh dear, I just gave my opinion, hopefully that's still allowed, or is that right now only reserved for liberals and those who think in the correct way?

810 BLBfootballs  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:08:12pm
When we say “sex,” we mean topics like abstinence, promiscuity, homosexuality, pre-marital relations, contraception, sodomy, nudity, pornography, masturbation, same-sex marriage, sex education, abortion, and morning-after pills. Does that list sound familiar? It should, because those are the issues that too often dominate your campaigns.

There really are just several things in here that are not true. When was the last time you heard any GOP candidate mention "promimscuity, pre-marital relations(?), nudity (?), pornography or masturbation"?

Never. Contraception? Only in the context of sex-ed and what schools should/should not be handing out. Morning-after pills? Only in the context of whether pharmacists have the right to refuse to dispense a medication that transgresses their moral beliefs. An unpleasant question...but one in which I think the existence of the affirmative position, in the extreme minority, can be tolerated.

Homosexuality? I don't know of a single conservative who wouldn't be thrilled to never have a public-policy discussion about homosexuality again. Why does it come up? Because Leftist activists insist on redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex. That's a big change. Are people who disagree best advised to just sit down and shut up?

What's going on here is that a lot of people with ongoing gripes/unease with the social/religious conservatives are letting it out because the GOP is (suuposedly) in the midst of a "soul searching".

811 SFGoth  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:10:32pm

re: #759 Cato the Elder

Cato's Law of Web Discourse, Part VII, section a, corollary 3: Lawyers who insist on "Esq." outside of a legal context always have ego trouble. See corollaries 1 and 2 re MDs and PhDs.

There's a local (S.F.) Republican gadfly named Terrence Faulkner, who refers to himself as Dr. Terrence Faulkner, J.D. Ok, I'm sure some of you just threw up in your mouths, but it gets worse. He routinely pays for the right to post a rebuttal to local ballot initiatives billing himself like that and identifying as a GOP'er. Ugh.

812 SFGoth  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:24:14pm

re: #789 Simply Me

I know marijuana is famous for making people eat to much (the munchies) and for becoming paranoid. But does marijuana tend to loosen inhibitions about lying and stealing? It does seem to loosen inhibitions about trying other drugs. But are there any studies? Maybe in the Netherlands?


Oh, a drug that makes you *paranoid* (fn1) also loosens your inhibitions to try drugs that require needles and/or can instantly strike you dead? Are you kidding me or do you have the magical ability to wipe both holes at the same time. No, alcohol is *the* gateway drug. I know speed freaks, acid heads, and even the occasional heroin user -- they all drink. The speed freaks won't touch weed. Think about it. A friend of mine is, by her own admission, addicted to sleeping pills. She takes them to *wake up* (it's really for the psychological value). She ran out and wanted me to get her high on weed to calm down. I told her that weed is not a "happy fun drug" like she thinks but she insisted. The next thing, she's totally in her own head about being addicted to pills and spouting on about how she doesn't want to be addicted to them anymore, she doesn't want to grow old on them, etc. Weed is a great psychiatric drug because you cannot lie to yourself when you're stoned - you just can't. I did speed once, at a party, mostly because I was falling asleep from *alcohol* and I did coke once because a cousin offered it to me. Meh. I think what leads some people from weed to something harder is that they realize the BS they're told about weed is just that -- BS -- so they assume the same is true of crank, crack, etc.

(Fn. - cannabis is a chemically complex plant. It is made up of numerous cannabinols, the most famous one of which is delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Eaten, that is converted by the liver to the even stronger delta-11, which is what causes the brownie effect. Cannabis also contains cannabidiol, which is causes the paranoia and narcotic effect ("couch lock") while THC is more psychedelic and actually mentally stimulating. Percentages vary by strain, but sativa is more THC while indica is more cannabidiol. When I was on my college debate team, the nation's best debaters, even on my own team (I did not partake and lemme tell you, Utah is bo-ring when you're sober all the way around), were serious stoners. They'd smoke up right before rounds and then just dominate. Of course, that's not a scientific analysis; there are probably great drunk debaters, but that doesn't establish cause and effect.)

813 gnargtharst  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:50:58pm

Excellent piece. I didn't read the whole thing, so my applause refers only to the bit posted here.

814 capitalist piglet  Tue, May 5, 2009 10:25:58pm

re: #595 avanti

Demons.

That's what I thought you must be referring to. I have seen it already. You need to stop telling people that Sarah Palin needed to have demons cast out of her, because it isn't true.

The person praying for her is a visiting pastor from Kenya, as I understand it. He sees things through his own spiritual prism, and through a different cultural lens. He is not an American. He doesn't sound like an American, he doesn't communicate like an American, and he doesn't use the same words an American might use. She is entirely passive in it. He is simply praying for her protection, and she is standing there.

This church, by the way, is one of 312,048 Assemblies of God churches worldwide. This is a mainstream congegration. Though it is Pentecostal and that isn't everyone's cup of tea, there is nothing to be freaked out about.

I'll bet there are people in that church who've prayed the same thing for Obama, even. And wouldn't it be unfair, if I should pray right now that the Lord would cast demons out of him and protect him from evil, to say that he had demons cast out of him in the past?

Please stop advancing this lie. It only makes you appear ignorant - and perhaps you were, but now you're not. There's nothing here.

815 stuiec  Tue, May 5, 2009 11:09:04pm

re: #715 Salamantis

Whether or not we admit it, they fundamentally issue from mutual consent between people who both refuse to dictate to their fellow citizens and refuse to be dictated to BY them, and who will even campaign to stop or prevent others from being coercively dictated to.

That is the uniquely American synthesis of the thesis and antithesis in Hegel's master/slave dialectic; the self-reliant, rugged individualist.


I think our foundational documents reflect the belief that our rights are inherent in our very existence as products of Divine creation -- "endowed by their Creator" and all that.

The issue of mutual consent of the governed is that it's much more fluid than the concept of an innate worth of each human being. Do our rights really disappear when the Constitution changes -- or even when a court's interpretation of the Constitution changes?

And if one faction becomes ascendant and determines that its rights are superior to the rights of all others, does that mean that its judgment is correct? Or is it merely the start of an era in which our God-given rights are suppressed by a man-made tyranny?

816 SixDegrees  Tue, May 5, 2009 11:45:05pm

re: #734 Hanoch

If you would prefer that those who are socially conservative not post their views on your blog, just say so. I don't think there is any need to be rude.

How about starting by being honest yourself: there's no such thing as "social conservatism." The agenda pushed by the religious right is the antithesis of Conservatism. Conservatism stands for small government and individual responsibility. The religious right wants to toss individual responsibility - and individual freedom - on the trash heap, and impose it's own moral order on the entire nation. It aspires to severely restrict and constrain all manner of activities which any Conservative would quickly identify as matters of personal liberty.

Trying to hide this agenda behind a label of conservatism is an odious lie.

The Dems, meanwhile, are all too happy to conflate these two opposing views.

817 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:07:07am

re: #784 Hanoch

Well, I'm not so sure you are right about the "creationist" thing. If you mean I believe G-d created the world, you are right. If, on the other hand, you are referring to a position on evolution, you are wrong. The truth is I don't pretend to have the expertise to evaluate the claims of evolution and would thus consider myself a somewhat skeptical agnostic on the issue.

As far as the public school issue, I just don't see it as a big deal that a teacher might suggest intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of the universe (nor do I consider it a big deal if they don't). In my view that alone does not rise to the level of teaching religion--it is merely postulating one possibility for the origin of the universe. (If a teacher went beyond that and began discussing religious beliefs and doctrine, that would, of course, be a much different story, and I would object to that).

The bottom line for me is, when you consider that the schools are being used to indoctrinate kids with all sorts of leftist drivel, and that most kids who graduate from high school seem unbelievable uneducated, I think we have much bigger problems.

I hope that helps in your labeling process.

Read the history; the Disco Institute coined the propaganda PR camo euphemism "intelligent design" in order to circumvent the judicial prohibition against teaching creationism in public schools. But Judge Jones saw right through that cynical subterfuge in Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

818 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:08:16am

re: #786 Simply Me

Well, my mother was glad that she got off the morphine what she was stuck on the hospital bed in traction. She said the addiction just took her over and she wasn't herself.

Morphine ain't marijuana.

819 DaMav  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:11:39am

So the party of Anthropogenic Global Warming which cannot be questioned or debated, are now the "science" party. Got it.

I strongly believe in evolution, and don't believe in "creation science". But for all its shortcomings, "creationism" is not insisting we raise trillions in tax dollars, destroy the world industrial and energy economies, and redistribute wealth and power to the UN. Given a choice, I'd say ID/CS is far less pernicious than what is being pushed by Gore, Obama, Waxman et alia.

820 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:12:43am

re: #789 Simply Me

I know marijuana is famous for making people eat to much (the munchies) and for becoming paranoid. But does marijuana tend to loosen inhibitions about lying and stealing? It does seem to loosen inhibitions about trying other drugs. But are there any studies? Maybe in the Netherlands?

Nope, it doesn't. Except maybe to say "That ain't mine" in order to avoid being busted. And if people didn't run into other drugs when they were buying their marijuana (which they wouldn't if it were legal), they would be much less likely to try them.

I did have a woman in the Netherlands tell me what a disaster legalizing drugs was. The town she lived in was ruined. But that is anecdotal and I can't even remember the name of the town.

If it were such a disaster, it would have been repealed by now. But that isn't even on the horizon there, AFAIK.

821 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:16:06am

re: #819 DaMav

So the party of Anthropogenic Global Warming which cannot be questioned or debated, are now the "science" party. Got it.

I strongly believe in evolution, and don't believe in "creation science". But for all its shortcomings, "creationism" is not insisting we raise trillions in tax dollars, destroy the world industrial and energy economies, and redistribute wealth and power to the UN. Given a choice, I'd say ID/CS is far less pernicious than what is being pushed by Gore, Obama, Waxman et alia.

No, they merely want us to substitute religious dogma for empirical science in public schools, so that we suffer economically when our miseducated youth can't innovate in the field, and run the chance of a major human catastrophe killing millions, if we lack the expertise to quickly and correctly respond to a bioweapons terror attack.

822 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:20:55am

re: #799 Max Darkside

The probability of life elsewhere is about 100%. We are not alone. We may think we are special, until that big-ass-teroid comes by and in a blink, we are gone.

Where Are They?
Why I Hope the Search for Extraterrestrial Life Finds Nothing
Nick Bostrom
[Link: www.nickbostrom.com...]

823 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:24:00am

re: #809 kaymad

Who gives a flying flip about intelligent design? Is this really the burning issue of our time? Really? And homosexuality? That's another burning issue in the republican party? Because it seems to me it''s Gay people constantly blathering on about it, it's the liberals constantly blathering on about it. It's the media constantly making an issue of it and it's judges overruling the will of the people. I'm sorry I think since the survival of a species depends on male/female interaction, that THAT puts the male/female relationship in a whole nother catagory than same sex couples. I could give a crap what you do in your bedroom, but lets not pretend same sex coupling could have the same damn outcome as heterosexual coupling. Oh dear, I just gave my opinion, hopefully that's still allowed, or is that right now only reserved for liberals and those who think in the correct way?

So now it's all about reproduction, and sterile heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

824 DaMav  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:25:07am

@Salamantis
The indoctrination in the public schools about AGW is already there in full force, complete with workbooks, test questions with answers, and feature presentations of Gore's non-science. Your boogie man is far smaller than what has already shown up and taken over.

If you are really worried about our children's future, and suffering "economically" remove the threat log of Gorist non-science before getting all hot and bothered about the mote of CS.

The idea that somehow the Creationists are going destroy the ability of scientists to think is a bit overblown. The idea of raising taxes, energy prices, and transferring power to the UN and NGOs is sitting on the desks of your elected representatives in Congress.

825 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:28:11am

re: #810 BLBfootballs

There really are just several things in here that are not true. When was the last time you heard any GOP candidate mention "promimscuity, pre-marital relations(?), nudity (?), pornography or masturbation"?

Never. Contraception? Only in the context of sex-ed and what schools should/should not be handing out. Morning-after pills? Only in the context of whether pharmacists have the right to refuse to dispense a medication that transgresses their moral beliefs. An unpleasant question...but one in which I think the existence of the affirmative position, in the extreme minority, can be tolerated.

Homosexuality? I don't know of a single conservative who wouldn't be thrilled to never have a public-policy discussion about homosexuality again. Why does it come up? Because Leftist activists insist on redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex. That's a big change. Are people who disagree best advised to just sit down and shut up?

What's going on here is that a lot of people with ongoing gripes/unease with the social/religious conservatives are letting it out because the GOP is (suuposedly) in the midst of a "soul searching".

As well it should be. Because extreme antiabortionism of the blanket ban type, obdurate rejection of gay civil unons, and trying to legislate the shoehorning of religious dogma into public high school science classes are losing political positions, and quite deservedly so.

826 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:31:58am

re: #824 DaMav

@Salamantis
The indoctrination in the public schools about AGW is already there in full force, complete with workbooks, test questions with answers, and feature presentations of Gore's non-science. Your boogie man is far smaller than what has already shown up and taken over.

If you are really worried about our children's future, and suffering "economically" remove the threat log of Gorist non-science before getting all hot and bothered about the mote of CS.

The idea that somehow the Creationists are going destroy the ability of scientists to think is a bit overblown. The idea of raising taxes, energy prices, and transferring power to the UN and NGOs is sitting on the desks of your elected representatives in Congress.

To try to argue against A by invoking B is a logical fallacy. Regardless of whether or notdogmatic AGWism is a danger (and I think that it is), shoehorning creationism into public schools is simply wrong. We can address both issues simultaneously; we don't have to fall flat on our faces when we try to walk and chew gum at the same time.

827 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:40:18am

re: #815 stuiec

I think our foundational documents reflect the belief that our rights are inherent in our very existence as products of Divine creation -- "endowed by their Creator" and all that.

That was most likely the Deist Creator rather than the Christian God, and while the Declaration of Independence is a much-beloved document, it was not addressed to the American People, but to King Charles II, and lacks the force of law. Nowhere in the US Constitution is a deity mentioned.

The issue of mutual consent of the governed is that it's much more fluid than the concept of an innate worth of each human being. Do our rights really disappear when the Constitution changes -- or even when a court's interpretation of the Constitution changes?

And if one faction becomes ascendant and determines that its rights are superior to the rights of all others, does that mean that its judgment is correct? Or is it merely the start of an era in which our God-given rights are suppressed by a man-made tyranny?

Robert A Heinlein, in Starship Troopers:

"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

828 DaMav  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:50:28am

@Salamantis
As I stated in my initial post in the thread, I am opposed to teaching ID/CS, and a strong proponent of evolution. That is hardly "arguing against A by invoking B". However the prioritization of risk is hardly a frivolous exercise but one conducted by rational people on a daily basis. The idea that we can oppose both AGW and CS being taught in school is correct but a trivial point; the question is where the emphasis and concern ought to be focused. One is an immediate danger backed by major consequences which are predicted by those on both sides of the issue -- i.e. economic costs and power transfer. The other, CS, is an annoyance by comparison.

The idea that a group of people believe that dinosaurs walked the Earth contemporaneously with humans leads to what compelling danger to our society? Before launching into anguish, consider the fact that large numbers of people believe in UFOs from outer space, angels, devils, lucky numbers, Nostradamus, and that it is bad luck to stay on the 13th floor of a building. Silly perhaps, but hardly a big deal in the overall outcome. The list of such non-scientific beliefs is virtually endless, and perhaps was even higher in the US in the past. Yet we innovated, we developed, we researched, we initiated and as a country we were not brought down by such beliefs. I look at CS largely the same way. I oppose it being taught in the schools, I would vote against anyone who made that a big issue in their campaign, but compared to other items on the agenda, it's a wisp in the wind and nothing I plan to lose any sleep over.

829 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 1:17:30am

re: #828 DaMav

@Salamantis
As I stated in my initial post in the thread, I am opposed to teaching ID/CS, and a strong proponent of evolution. That is hardly "arguing against A by invoking B". However the prioritization of risk is hardly a frivolous exercise but one conducted by rational people on a daily basis. The idea that we can oppose both AGW and CS being taught in school is correct but a trivial point; the question is where the emphasis and concern ought to be focused. One is an immediate danger backed by major consequences which are predicted by those on both sides of the issue -- i.e. economic costs and power transfer. The other, CS, is an annoyance by comparison.

The idea that a group of people believe that dinosaurs walked the Earth contemporaneously with humans leads to what compelling danger to our society? Before launching into anguish, consider the fact that large numbers of people believe in UFOs from outer space, angels, devils, lucky numbers, Nostradamus, and that it is bad luck to stay on the 13th floor of a building. Silly perhaps, but hardly a big deal in the overall outcome. The list of such non-scientific beliefs is virtually endless, and perhaps was even higher in the US in the past. Yet we innovated, we developed, we researched, we initiated and as a country we were not brought down by such beliefs. I look at CS largely the same way. I oppose it being taught in the schools, I would vote against anyone who made that a big issue in their campaign, but compared to other items on the agenda, it's a wisp in the wind and nothing I plan to lose any sleep over.

These people are being funded and manipulated by well-heeled shadowy theocrats such as Howard Ahmanson who take their ideas from people like the Christian Reconstructionist and Dominionist Rousas John Rushdoony, and those behind-the-scenes people are desiring to use the indoctrination of other peoples' kids into creationist dogma in public high schools as a means by which to raise up a generation of fundie-friendly voters, with the objective of electing theocrats who will discard the US Constitution, replace it with the Bible, and morph our constitutional democratic republic into a Christian version of Iran or Saudi Arabia, led by fundamentalist clerics, and complete with our own version of sharia law.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

830 theheat  Wed, May 6, 2009 3:21:11am

re: #430 DistantThunder

I think at some point, what's legal and individual religious beliefs will clash inside and outside of the public school setting, and it is certainly not restricted to acceptance of homosexuals.

For example, and this is rather simplistic, you may have parents remove their children from class if evolution is taught, and they don't "believe" in evolution. Let's go even more extreme, and say your friendly neighborhood religiously-skewed Klukkers pull their kids out of school during Black History Month, or because a person of color may be their math teacher.

I think the bigger problem is, that 'being' homosexual is a pretty serious concept for Kindergartners to comprehend, simply because ultimately it cannot exempt sex. Depending on what effed-up way the concept was shared with my kids, I'd probably have a problem with it, too, for my 5-6 year old son or daughter, and I consider myself very gay-friendly. I don't think sex+Kindergarten is appropriate; homosexual, heterosexual, or otherwise.

IMHO, if anything is going to be talked about from an early age, it should be the concept of bullying the 'odd' kids. Odd covers a lot of bases, from handicapped, to obese, to kids living with homosexual parents, or kids that are homosexuals, themselves. You need not get into complicated/religiously offensive specifics; just teach kids that bullying other kids - and treating them with disrespect - isn't okay i.e. "Don't be such an insufferable asshole to the fat kid, or the boy that plays with his sister's dolls, or I'll tan your backside like there's no tomorrow. It isn't polite. It isn't done that way. Got it? Good. Now go out and play basketball with the other kids, my little darling."

Denying the existence of homosexuals on religious grounds is a lot like denying the reality of evolution. Homosexuals are real, they aren't illegal, they aren't anything new, and they're people like anyone else. Fearing, loathing, and denying their existence (with such a weak excuse as religious beliefs) just isn't going to fly in this day and age. I don't see sheltering children from this reality is doing anything other than promoting homophobia, but I do think there is an appropriate time and place, and Kindergarten ain't it.

831 elcaro  Wed, May 6, 2009 3:40:50am

I'm sure the writer had a few good things to say, but I stopped reading after the writer confused abortion as a "sex topic"...

At best, it's sloppy writing...

832 DaMav  Wed, May 6, 2009 4:40:49am

@Salamantis
OMG "well-heeled shadowy theocrats"? No doubt flying Christian roflcopters too. A vast Christian conspiracy to implement American Sharia Law you say. Wow. Our children enslaved by... evil fundies with black brimmed hats using Creation Science as a stalking horse for... wait for it... Total World Domination by Jesus! Long lines of peasants forced to take communion, and recite the Ten Commandments! Re-education camps where hapless disbelievers are forced to watch The Greatest Story Ever Told, in Technicolor.

Surely you don't expect me to take your position seriously after you try to frighten me with this hard boiled conspiracy nonsense?

833 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 5:16:33am

re: #832 DaMav

@Salamantis
OMG "well-heeled shadowy theocrats"? No doubt flying Christian roflcopters too. A vast Christian conspiracy to implement American Sharia Law you say. Wow. Our children enslaved by... evil fundies with black brimmed hats using Creation Science as a stalking horse for... wait for it... Total World Domination by Jesus! Long lines of peasants forced to take communion, and recite the Ten Commandments! Re-education camps where hapless disbelievers are forced to watch The Greatest Story Ever Told, in Technicolor.

Surely you don't expect me to take your position seriously after you try to frighten me with this hard boiled conspiracy nonsense?

I gave you four separate Wikipdia links; investigate the links you find there for yourself. You will find that these people do exist, and that I have accurately represented what they are striving to do.

Do I think that they'll succeed in realizing their ends? No. But the means that they are employing - attacking and corrupting the empirical science education of our public school youth by means of religious dogma pollution - is very damaging in and of itself, whether or not they achieve their ultimate goals.

834 Hanoch  Wed, May 6, 2009 5:33:34am

re: #816 SixDegrees

Any enactment of law restricts individual liberty. But people accept such restrictions to further ends which they deem to be more important. Thus, for example, when a municipality enacts laws restricting the locations "adult" businesses, the liberty of some (particularly the proprietors) is restricted. But that is deemed by the majority to be an acceptable trade-off to advance other goals deemed more important. Conservatism does not stand for the proposition that any restriction of personal liberty is bad.

The primary agenda items of the religious right in recent times have been abortion, gay marriage and human embryonic research. If you disagree with the religious right on those issues, that is your right. But to suggest that the religious right is, by taking their positions on these issues, effectively looking to "to toss individual responsibility - and individual freedom - on the trash heap" is way over the top.

835 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 6:01:28am

re: #834 Hanoch

Any enactment of law restricts individual liberty. But people accept such restrictions to further ends which they deem to be more important. Thus, for example, when a municipality enacts laws restricting the locations "adult" businesses, the liberty of some (particularly the proprietors) is restricted. But that is deemed by the majority to be an acceptable trade-off to advance other goals deemed more important. Conservatism does not stand for the proposition that any restriction of personal liberty is bad.

The primary agenda items of the religious right in recent times have been abortion, gay marriage and human embryonic research. If you disagree with the religious right on those issues, that is your right. But to suggest that the religious right is, by taking their positions on these issues, effectively looking to "to toss individual responsibility - and individual freedom - on the trash heap" is way over the top.

But abrogating certain personal rights and individual freedoms is precisely what they are striving to do by politically campaigning to legislatively forbid all abortions and gay civil unions. You may favor such abrogations (I do not, since I consider them to be unwarranted governmental intrusions into peoples' personal and private lives), but it is clearly untrue to say that if the socons succeed, that these particular personal rights and individual freedoms will remain unabrogated.

836 [deleted]  Wed, May 6, 2009 6:42:39am
837 Hanoch  Wed, May 6, 2009 6:54:39am

re: #835 Salamantis

You are certainly correct that restricting abortion would be a restriction on the liberty interest of the mother. I am in favor of reasonable restrictions here because I see a countervailing, and more important, liberty interest at play, i.e., the right of the unborn child to life. Obviously, reasonable people, including yourself, differ on this.

I don't think opposition to gay marriage involves a restriction on liberty. Gay people can currently live their lives as they see fit. If they want, they can live with each other and even consider themselves married if they choose. What they are currently unable to do, however, is impose their personal views on the issue of marriage on society as a whole by force of law.

838 Land Shark  Wed, May 6, 2009 7:02:25am

I'm afraid the open letter is right on the money. While I've always agreed 100% with the Republican position on abortion (to me this travesty is the most fundamental violation of human rights there is) the focus of too many Republicans is not where it should be, bringing the party back to fiscal restraint and small government. Instead we're seeing them spending time on Creationism and other issues that at best will do nothing to get them votes. While a majority of the nation seems against gay marriage, it's not an issue that's going to return the party to power. And The Sensuous Curmudgeon is quite correct in pointing out the Creationism thing can only be used against them.

The sad thing is that there's a golden opportunity here for the GOP to differentiate itself and offer a very viable alternative to the Obama regime's reckless actions on spending, growth of government and national defense and security. The Republicans need to narrow their focus and get on those issues. The Dems are extraordinarily weak there, and that's where the GOP can gain ground.

839 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 7:08:05am

re: #837 Hanoch

You are certainly correct that restricting abortion would be a restriction on the liberty interest of the mother. I am in favor of reasonable restrictions here because I see a countervailing, and more important, liberty interest at play, i.e., the right of the unborn child to life. Obviously, reasonable people, including yourself, differ on this.

I can only repeat my post# 486:

A zygote or embryo isn't even a potential person, because the word potential carries with it the connotational baggage of the inevitability of that potential's actualization, and fully a third of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted, or misscarried (which makes God or Nature, whichever you prefer, far and away the world's greatest abortionist, and poses the question of whether a perfect God is making mistakes by causing such abortions, or correcting mistakes committed earlier by allowing the pregnancies to begin in the first place).

No, a zygote or embryo is a possible future person, and when the rights of a possible future person come into conflict with the rights of an actual present person, the rights of the latter must take moral precedence.

I don't think opposition to gay marriage involves a restriction on liberty. Gay people can currently live their lives as they see fit. If they want, they can live with each other and even consider themselves married if they choose. What they are currently unable to do, however, is impose their personal views on the issue of marriage on society as a whole by force of law.

I have no problem with calling them gay civil unions, and reserving the term 'marriage' for heterosexual unions, as long as such civil unions confer the same legal rights and privileges that accrue to heterosexual marriage, including equivalent tax status, mutual inheritance rights, spousal medical decisionmaking authority, spousal employment benefits, and spousal insurance benefits.

840 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 7:15:25am

re: #836 teichrod

teichrod
Karma: -3
Registered since: Jul 5, 2007 at 5:40 pm
No. of comments posted: 2
No. of links posted: 0

Obviously, your departure is a castastrophically disastrous and devastating loss, that will wound this site deeply. I cannot conceive of how we will be able to struggle on without you.

/do I really need to?

841 Yashmak  Wed, May 6, 2009 7:24:01am

re: #819 DaMav

So the party of Anthropogenic Global Warming which cannot be questioned or debated, are now the "science" party. Got it.

I strongly believe in evolution, and don't believe in "creation science". But for all its shortcomings, "creationism" is not insisting we raise trillions in tax dollars, destroy the world industrial and energy economies, and redistribute wealth and power to the UN. Given a choice, I'd say ID/CS is far less pernicious than what is being pushed by Gore, Obama, Waxman et alia.

It's suggesting something that would, if the teaching of religious dogma in science classes became a reality, damage our ability to ever erase that debt by blunting our edge in the field of biological sciences. Can't you see that? Our edge in the sciences, no matter what field, keep our products selling. When we lose that edge, someone else gets the market share, and our economy loses. That's pretty pernicious, if you ask me.

842 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Wed, May 6, 2009 8:20:59am

I know I'm late to the game, but I must have missed the McCain/Obama debate over masturbation last election.

843 HDrepub  Wed, May 6, 2009 8:30:31am

re: #838 Land Shark

The sad thing is that there's a golden opportunity here for the GOP to differentiate itself and offer a very viable alternative to the Obama regime's reckless actions on spending, growth of government and national defense and security. The Republicans need to narrow their focus and get on those issues. The Dems are extraordinarily weak there, and that's where the GOP can gain ground.

You seem to grasp the situation quite well. We are fighting the wrong culture war. We need to defend capitalism from the Obama administration. It's who we are and what this country was founded on, and if we continue with the distractions, we are failing to see the big picture. The Democrats enjoy the GOP looking at something else why they tear down the country financially.

844 Land Shark  Wed, May 6, 2009 9:48:43am

re: #843 HDrepub

Thanks. Until very recently, I thought criticism of the GOP for being socially conservative was a straw man argument, after all, they've always held these socially conservative views. But lately there has been a rash of Republican politicians talking about Creationism and other issues not related to what they should be focusing on and what caused voters to turn away from them. Whenever the GOP has been seen as fiscally responsible, for small government and strong national defense they have done well at the polls, regardless of their stand on social issues.

845 MrSnuggles  Wed, May 6, 2009 10:41:53am

So in order to win politically, the Republican party needs to give in to every social issue on the table?

Cowardice. Pure cowardice.

846 Land Shark  Wed, May 6, 2009 10:56:47am

re: #845 MrSnuggles

Not really. Simply focus on the issues that have always won the GOP votes. Fiscal restraint, small government and national security. They have won before with them without giving in on the social issues.

847 Yashmak  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:16:16pm

re: #845 MrSnuggles

So in order to win politically, the Republican party needs to give in to every social issue on the table?

Not at all. But if conservatives want to win elections in a national environment such as this, where the economy, security, and foreign policy are major concerns, they shouldn't waste time pushing issues important only to the soc-con portion of the party. . .issues that actually alienate a substantial portion of the party's voters.

848 cptsci  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:45:17pm

Exactly the reasons I left the Republican Party. I could not longer associate with a party that pandered to the religious right. Because of their antics, we are a laughingstock. I am a scientist, an atheist, a veteran, an educator, and an "assault-rifle" owner, so I don't neatly fit into any political parties' core supporters. But if the Republican Party hopes to recapture my interest, they need to return to their core values and tell the religious right to go start their own political party.

849 satan sidekick  Wed, May 6, 2009 2:26:16pm

re: #45 opnion

I voted for McCain but it was really a vote AGAINST Obama. McCain didn't help the Republican Party either by being the candidate.

850 satan sidekick  Wed, May 6, 2009 2:27:54pm

re: #848 cptsci

I argue with my husband about this very issue all of the time. I don't want to be associated with bible bangers when it comes to our government. Let them start their own party because they've taken over the GOP.

851 Mikky  Wed, May 6, 2009 5:29:19pm

Not too knowledgeable on American politics, but reading this I realize a LOT of speeches or whatnot really do put a lot of attention on these issues. Pretty sad, when you see the 'good' party end up with so many people who don't address/care/forget the basic tradition of it

852 abu jimbola  Wed, May 6, 2009 7:52:44pm

Pierre Trudeau was an asshole leftist and really messed up our country by debasing the currency, running up big deficits and degrading the military. It has taken us nearly 30 years to fix the mess (sound familiar to anyone?)... but one thing he said really took root in Canada and nobody but nobody has messed with it (including the Conservative Party)..

That was.."The State has NO BUSINESS in the bedrooms of the nation"

853 The Dude  Wed, May 6, 2009 8:11:05pm

It's tempting to me to give the post a "thumbs up" for calling out SoCons for their role in the perceived demise of Republicans. But it seems more likely to me that it just happens to be the Democrats turn now. I really didn't see McCain as a particularly staunch social conservative, yet he still lost. Then again, McCain didn't strike me as much of a fiscal conservative either (and Obama is?), so expound as you wish on the role that played.

All in all, I read a lot of hand wringing on conservative blogs about who's to blame for President Obama. It's always the 's fault. I've reached the conclusion that it comes down to nothing more than the fact that voters are fickle. We're on the leftward swing of the political pendulum now. I don't like it, but it won't stay that way forever. I voted for neither McCain nor Obama myself, so I guess it's easier for me to say that than it is for the party purists.

854 Yashmak  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:48:34am

re: #853 The Dude

Dude, I think you're looking at this from a slightly different angle than many of us. I've already moved beyond the 'why Obama won/McCain lost' aspect of the issue. To me, that's like crying over spilt milk. . .pointless for the very reasons you cite. McCain's campaign suffered from many things, the largest single factor of which was that people genuinely wanted a change from Bush, and saw him as a continuation of the same. I didn't see that soc-con issues played a huge role in that, although I know based several of my acquaintances that Palin's pushing of soc-con issues did alienate some more socially moderate voters from their ticket. McCain almost certainly would have been more fiscally conservative than Obama (based simply on their stated policy goals), but that didn't seem to help him much. I voted for Hunter in the primary, and then McCain in the election as the alternative most likely to beat Obama. That was ok with me, as I've always respected McCain, in spite of differing from him on certain issues. For most of us, it's impossible to find a candidate who matches our positions on every issue anyway.

Regardless of the reasons for his loss, I'm looking forward now, to the next elections down the road. The Republican party, if it wishes to regain seats or take the White House back, needs to avoid alienating voters. These social conservative issues alienate not just moderate voters, but also many constitutionalist and libertarian conservatives who abhor government intrusion into their lives. The party needs those votes to win seats and/or the Presidency.

855 The Dude  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:26:09am
These social conservative issues alienate not just moderate voters, but also many constitutionalist and libertarian conservatives who abhor government intrusion into their lives. The party needs those votes to win seats and/or the Presidency.

Very well said and I agree. The thing I can't get past though is what someone said earlier about confusing the issue of abortion with sex. As much as I abhor government intrusion into my life, the killing of an unborn infant because the mother finds it inconvenient is, to put it mildly, morally repugnant. It's a losing issue politically and I accept that. What I don't accept is that there is no clear line between right and wrong with respect to abortion (given exceptions for rape, incest, mother's health).

856 Yashmak  Thu, May 7, 2009 12:18:55pm

re: #855 The Dude

As much as I abhor government intrusion into my life, the killing of an unborn infant because the mother finds it inconvenient is, to put it mildly, morally repugnant. It's a losing issue politically and I accept that. What I don't accept is that there is no clear line between right and wrong with respect to abortion (given exceptions for rape, incest, mother's health).

Well, not sure what to say about that. I know it's a hard line for many, and that many don't accept that there is no 'clear line'. But fact is, even when we have a candidate with a stated pro-life position pre-election (i.e. Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2), they tend not to make a major issue of it once elected. As a result, I consider a given candidate's position on the issue to be rather irrelevant, and a waste of time considering there are other policies that said candidates actually WILL address post-election.

You may not accept that there is no 'clear line', but in order to rationally consider your candidate options, you have to understand that there's a significant portion of the population that DOES accept that, and votes from that point of view.

857 The Dude  Thu, May 7, 2009 6:16:35pm
But fact is, even when we have a candidate with a stated pro-life position pre-election (i.e. Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2), they tend not to make a major issue of it once elected.

Again, I agree with you. It's not an issue I vote (based on) for exactly the reason you state. The problem I have is with lumping the issue of abortion in with, say, two consenting adults engaging in something social conservatives would consider "perverse".

As far as SoCons go, I'm with you when I think they overplay their hand with regard to personal sexual choices. The vast majority of what they attempt to delve into is truly none of their business and I resent them for delving into it in the first place. But abortion is a very different issue and to place it into the same category as things like gay marriage does thinking conservatives of all stripes a serious disservice.

Looking at the bigger picture though, it's sad to me to see the only group that can reverse some of the damage Obama is doing (and will do) to this country bogged down in internal squabbles. That was the real point of my original comment. Conservatism was once thought of as a three-legged stool: fiscal, social and defense. We need all three in the proper balance. Unfortunately, two of the three now seem hell-bent on destroying each other rather than the left.

858 Salamantis  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:01:45pm

re: #857 The Dude

Again, I agree with you. It's not an issue I vote (based on) for exactly the reason you state. The problem I have is with lumping the issue of abortion in with, say, two consenting adults engaging in something social conservatives would consider "perverse".

As far as SoCons go, I'm with you when I think they overplay their hand with regard to personal sexual choices. The vast majority of what they attempt to delve into is truly none of their business and I resent them for delving into it in the first place. But abortion is a very different issue and to place it into the same category as things like gay marriage does thinking conservatives of all stripes a serious disservice.

Looking at the bigger picture though, it's sad to me to see the only group that can reverse some of the damage Obama is doing (and will do) to this country bogged down in internal squabbles. That was the real point of my original comment. Conservatism was once thought of as a three-legged stool: fiscal, social and defense. We need all three in the proper balance. Unfortunately, two of the three now seem hell-bent on destroying each other rather than the left.

Blanket antiabortionism just seems to be your pet socon issue, so you wanna claim that it is different, and doesn't belong with the rest.

But this is the very same way that anti-gay-civil-union people look upon THEIR pet socon issue, and how creationism-in-public-school advocates look upon THEIRS.

Sorry to break your raptured spell, but ALL THREE of these issues need to get kicked outta the bandwagon and hit the fucking road, or at least sit quietly in the de-emphasized back seat, if we ever wanna attract the centrists, moderates, independents and Reagan Dems we need to win elections. Because a helluva lotta them simply will not vote for a party that advocates such positions, regardless of whatever else that party has to say.

We can sell swing voters on strong defence and fiscal discipline, but whenever we try to sell them a regressive social agenda, they tell us to go fuck ourselves.

859 The Dude  Fri, May 8, 2009 4:46:20am
We can sell swing voters on strong defence and fiscal discipline, but whenever we try to sell them a regressive social agenda, they tell us to go fuck ourselves.

In what way did John McCain try to sell a regressive social agenda? Bottom line is, McCain is exactly what you describe as a centrist moderate with regard to social issues. On the flip side, with regard to fiscal issues, he's a centrist moderate that doesn't happen to be quite as far left as Obama. IMHO, if you want to appeal to the independent middle (and I'm among them) you're going to have to focus on fiscal issues.

McCain is evidence that you can be socially moderate and still have no appeal to the middle for what should be an obvious reason: reckless federal spending. But if it makes you feel better to blame social conservatives for all of your problems in winning elections then carry on. The results speak for themselves. As much as you want to blame social conservatives for your problems as a party, the reality is that you need their votes to win elections.

860 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:23:08am

re: #859 The Dude

In what way did John McCain try to sell a regressive social agenda? Bottom line is, McCain is exactly what you describe as a centrist moderate with regard to social issues. On the flip side, with regard to fiscal issues, he's a centrist moderate that doesn't happen to be quite as far left as Obama. IMHO, if you want to appeal to the independent middle (and I'm among them) you're going to have to focus on fiscal issues.

McCain is evidence that you can be socially moderate and still have no appeal to the middle for what should be an obvious reason: reckless federal spending. But if it makes you feel better to blame social conservatives for all of your problems in winning elections then carry on. The results speak for themselves. As much as you want to blame social conservatives for your problems as a party, the reality is that you need their votes to win elections.

McCain has an 82.3 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, and a perfect antiabortion voting record. He also never accepted earmarks for his home state.

It is a pernicious socon myth that he was a RINO.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 95 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 261 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1