Free Republic Founder Calls for Revolution

Weird • Views: 5,636

Jim Robinson, founder of right wing website Free Republic, has decided he’s going to toss out the results of the last election, remove Barack Obama from office, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments to the US Constitution (and Roe v. Wade, of course), abolish a host of federal agencies, and give all governmental power to individual states: If we could get millions of Americans to march on Washington, what would we do?

The best part: he’s going to make Hillary Clinton president.

Therefore, We the People of America choose to exercise our right to throw off and alter the abusive government by peacefully recalling and removing from office the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States and all U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives effective immediately.

An interim provisional Chief Executive and congressional representatives will be established as follows:

The Secretary of State shall immediately assume the office of interim Chief Executive. The Chief Executive shall appoint and the interim Senate shall confirm an interim Vice President.

But don’t worry. Sure, he’s calling for a revolution, but it’s going to be non-violent. (Nudge nudge, wink wink.)

This concept is an entirely peaceful altering of our despotic government per our unalienable right and duty. No where do I call for violence. The only force I call for is the force of numbers. We need millions of our citizens to sign on to this petition and execute its provisions. Will require millions to march on D.C. to block the government’s ability to do business as usual. This is our right and duty as Americans.

Good grief.

Jump to bottom

388 comments
1 MandyManners  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:32:58am

I’d love to have what he’s smoking.

2 zombie  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:33:04am

But if you go carrying pictures of ol’ Ron Paul,
Ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow….

3 albusteve  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:33:16am

so what’s the plan for me if I resist?…re-ed?

4 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:33:17am

Is Glenn Beck all atwitter now, too? Egads. Goofballs to the left of me, whackos to the right.

5 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:34:06am

I’ll bet he buys all of his clothes at “Banana Republic”.

6 Racer X  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:34:31am

re: #2 zombie

But if you go carrying pictures of ol’ Ron Paul,
Ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow….

‘you know it’s gotta be
Ron Paul’

7 Cathypop  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:34:37am

re: #1 MandyManners

I’d love to have what he’s smoking.


And if he isn’t smoking something he better start now!

8 Rolltideroll  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:35:45am

For a group of hard core patriots, they sure do advocate sedition a lot. Do hey understand that things change, there is an ebb and flow from right to left in our nation?I swear, they just don;t get that the way to win elections in a republic is to get more people to vote in line with your views. Insanity like this causes people to have a gut reaction to support the other side. Example 1:

9 Gella  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:35:45am

there is no such thing as non-violent revolution, all he wants is to sign some paper that will get shredded
he needs to read some history

10 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:35:54am

As I said earlier about this: Who ever thought we’d see the day when FR wants to depose Obama to replace him with….Hillary?

11 Pianobuff  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:35:57am

Maybe Sanford can help him in some far, out-of-the-way place.

12 Rolltideroll  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:36:06am

re: #4 ArmyWife

Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

13 albusteve  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:36:10am

imagine the cluster fuck of millions of people marching on Washington…that right there proves a code red disconnect

14 SixDegrees  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:36:21am

re: #1 MandyManners

I’d love to have what he’s smoking.

I wonder how he feels about exercise balls?

15 Racer X  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:36:44am

The MSM ignored the stoopid on the left.

You just know they are parading these morons as the face of the right.

Fuck.

16 Bobblehead  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:36:44am

re: #2 zombie

But if you go carrying pictures of ol’ Ron Paul,
Ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow….

Ding, ding. Zombie is first with the Beatles tie-in.

17 zombie  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:36:48am
But don’t worry. Sure, he’s calling for a revolution, but it’s going to be non-violent. (Nudge nudge, wink wink.)

This concept is an entirely peaceful altering of our despotic government per our unalienable right and duty. No where do I call for violence. The only force I call for is the force of numbers. We need millions of our citizens to sign on to this petition and execute its provisions. Will require millions to march on D.C. to block the government’s ability to do business as usual. This is our right and duty as Americans.

And what, pray tell, is going to happen when the other 50% of Americans who want to keep Obama in office show up in Washington to “protest” their point of view?

Will the standoff be settled with a stately game of rock-paper-scissors?

Or will a violent civil war break out with millions of dead in the streets?

My money is on the latter eventuality.

18 Macker  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:37:10am

I seem to recall a March on Washington back in 1963 which was peaceful.

19 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:37:20am

re: #4 ArmyWife

Is Glenn Beck all atwitter now, too? Egads. Goofballs to the left of me, whackos to the right.

It is a sad state of affairs.

20 ihateronpaul  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:37:36am

this is what all of the hyperventilating on wnd and fox news and freep has led to. Instead of revenge of the nerds, it is revenge of the ill-informed white trash methheads.

yechhhh

21 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:38:28am

This is not going to end well.

22 Macker  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:38:30am

re: #17 zombie

And what, pray tell, is going to happen when the other 50% of Americans who want to keep Obama in office show up in Washington to “protest” their point of view?

Will the standoff be settled with a stately game of rock-paper-scissors?

Or will a violent civil war break out with millions of dead in the streets?

My money is on the latter eventuality.

With most of the dead being on the liberals’ side…they don’t have as many guns as conservatives do.

23 Ziggy  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:39:22am

re: #2 zombie

But if you go carrying pictures of ol’ Ron Paul, now
Ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow….

It just sounds better when it rhymes

24 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:39:34am

re: #17 zombie

I think it would be resolved with a resounding game of “win, lose or draw”.

pun fully intended.

25 Racer X  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:39:44am

re: #17 zombie

Will the standoff be settled with a stately game of rock-paper-scissors?

I always pick rock. When my oppenent claims that ‘paper covers rock’ I bash ‘em in the head with the rock.

I win.

26 MandyManners  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:39:59am

re: #20 ihateronpaul

You’re a nasty bit of work.

27 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:40:06am

re: #17 zombie

It’s quite possible that this is going to result in another Tim McVeigh or something similar.

28 MandyManners  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:40:37am

re: #21 Killgore Trout

This is not going to end well.

Oh, bullshit. This is just some idiot performining mental masturbation on the Internet.

29 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:40:39am

re: #22 Macker

You assume conservatives with guns would somehow support this crap? I assure you, my arsenal won’t be used for such a purpose.

30 MandyManners  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:41:25am

I just cannot take this seriously.

31 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:41:53am

re: #22 Macker

Nonsense. The Us military/National guard will squish any redneck uprising in a few days. These anti-government idiots are not even close to being as tough as the Taliban.

32 zombie  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:42:26am

re: #28 MandyManners

Oh, bullshit. This is just some idiot performining mental masturbation on the Internet.

I fully agree. Ain’t never gonna happen, ain’t never even going to be attempted. He just wants to the glory and accolades of being the first to suggest it.

33 Lincolntf  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:42:26am

I’d bet that 95-99% of Americans think that “Free Republic” is a store at the mall. The “Freepers” would be lucky to get even thousands of marchers/disruption artists to attend their silly “take over”, never mind millions.

34 wahabicorridor  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:42:36am

re: #27 Killgore Trout

It’s quite possible that this is going to result in another Tim McVeigh or something similar.

Oh bullshit.

35 Rolltideroll  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:42:42am

Two Words: Predator Drones.

36 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:43:04am

re: #28 MandyManners

We’ve already seen political violence from ODS sufferers and it’s only been six months.

37 Racer X  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:43:53am

re: #30 MandyManners

I just cannot take this seriously.

Many liberals said that about the leftist nut jobs. Look who they just elected president. At this rate Ron Paul will be elected president in 2012.

*triple fuck with a twist*

38 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:43:55am
39 MandyManners  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:43:57am

re: #32 zombie

I fully agree. Ain’t never gonna happen, ain’t never even going to be attempted. He just wants to the glory and accolades of being the first to suggest it.

Who would glorify this nonsense?

40 Gella  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:44:03am

re: #33 Lincolntf

I’d bet that 95-99% of Americans think that “Free Republic” is a store at the mall. The “Freepers” would be lucky to get even thousands of marchers/disruption artists to attend their silly “take over”, never mind millions.

no, we think is a radio
////

41 Rolltideroll  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:44:07am

re: #36 Killgore Trout
The irony being it makes Obama more likely to be reelected.

42 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:44:12am

Tea Party video….

Ballot Box to Bullet Box?

43 Macker  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:44:45am

re: #35 Rolltideroll

Which can be shot down.

44 MandyManners  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:44:54am

re: #36 Killgore Trout

We’ve already seen political violence from ODS sufferers and it’s only been six months.

I’m trying to think of the guy back east, the white supremacist.

45 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:44:56am

re: #36 Killgore Trout

Do you really think there has been an upswing in this kind of “violence”? I would suggest its been there all along, only now it’s more fun for the media to pin it on Conservatives as “normal”. It isn’t normal at all - no more than Cindy Sheehan was the spokes model for the democrat party.

46 Pianobuff  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:44:56am

re: #30 MandyManners

I just cannot take this seriously.

Seems like bellowing from a guy who never got enough attention knowing that no one (or at least very few) are paying attention now.

47 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:45:08am

The commenters are posting pictures of people being tarred and feathered.

48 anotherindyfilmguy  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:45:15am

I hope he gets everything he needs… not necessarily what he wants, just what he needs…

49 MandyManners  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:45:29am

I’m gone for now. Later.

50 zombie  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:45:51am

re: #39 MandyManners

Who would glorify this nonsense?

Fellow freepers.

It seems places like Free Republic, Democratic Underground and Infowars are just big online “Truth or Dare” games where people egg each other on to say the most extreme things. The further out you go, the higher your status.

51 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:46:15am

re: #37 Racer X

This is my fear - over correcting. Either way, we are in loonyville.

52 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:46:20am

Commenters calling for millions of people to bring their guns when they march on Washington.

53 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:46:34am
54 zombie  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:46:50am

re: #52 Charles

Commenters calling for millions of people to bring their guns when they march on Washington.

Their nonviolent guns, I presume.

55 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:46:51am

Jim? One of the things that I love about America is that leadership changes without violence.

American’s work to have their views elected into office. If they lose, they work harder for next time.

That’s the way it is.

56 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:47:11am

re: #52 Charles

to keep the peace, right?

57 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:47:36am

re: #47 Charles

The commenters are posting pictures of people being tarred and feathered.

“Dueling Banjos” playing in the background…?

58 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:47:46am

re: #54 zombie

In and of themselves, guns are non-violent. Its the stupid people holding them that have the issue.

59 jaunte  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:47:58am

Coming up: The Dozen-Nut March on Washington.

60 Racer X  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:47:59am

re: #52 Charles

Commenters calling for millions of people to bring their guns when they march on Washington.

7 will show up. And go straight to jail.

Freepers, meh.

61 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:48:01am

re: #5 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I’ll bet he buys all of his clothes at “Banana Republic”.

For the record, that used to be a good place to buy affordable and durable khakis back in the day. Then like other establishments, the price went up too far and the quality declined. Such a shame.

62 Sergeant Major  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:48:03am

I heard Glenn Beck is running for the Senate….If “Pat” AKA ..Al Franken got elected, I think that’s a pretty good idea of where this country is headed

63 Last Mohican  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:48:22am

re: #52 Charles

Commenters calling for millions of people to bring their guns when they march on Washington.

Well I’m sure that will go really well.

64 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:48:40am

re: #44 MandyManners

Yeah, there was that guy. The Holocaust museum shooter. The Glenn Beck fan/White supremacist in Philedlphia (I think) who shot a bunch of cops a few months ago. This is the kind of rhetoric that that encourages these people. It’s not intelligent political discourse and serves no other purpose than to radicalize the audience.

65 Rolltideroll  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:48:58am

re: #43 Macker

I am sure you are setting on some advanced weaponry. What’s your plan for helicopters and tanks? My plan is to avoid them by not getting hopped up on moonshine and talking about taking potshots at our troops.
Here is a video of your average Freeper:
[Link: vids.myspace.com…]

66 poteen  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:48:59am

Paragraph 1 to 3 I agree with him.
Paragraph 4 and 5 the little shit gets all full of himself.
6 to 11 we redo what we did last year and get 100% different results?
I’ll read the rest but I don’t know why.

67 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:49:30am

WORDS MEAN THINGS!

68 Ziggy  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:49:45am

why do I keep thinking about this song


69 wahabicorridor  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:50:07am

re: #52 Charles

Commenters calling for millions of people to bring their guns when they march on Washington.

That would be hilarious. The gun laws in DC STILL suck, even after Heller.

70 zombie  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:50:07am

re: #62 Sergeant Major

I heard Glenn Beck is running for the Senate….If “Pat” AKA ..Al Franken got elected, I think that’s a pretty good idea of where this country is headed

Imagine a Senate with 50 screaming comedians on the D side, and 50 screaming shock jocks on the R side.

Charles, are you sure “Clown Court” wasn’t a documentary?

71 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:50:15am

Oh crap.

I posted at FR for years and I still have an account there, though I haven’t posted for a long time. Should I post an “opus” (FRspeak for “flounce”) and get my ass ZOTTED?

72 Last Mohican  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:50:59am

Wasn’t Pamela Geller going to overthrow the government too? I hope the Freepers don’t pick the same day as her. That would be awkward.

73 Rolltideroll  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:51:09am

re: #50 zombie

Yea, it a social psychology phenomenon: Leave people of like mind together and their views become more extreme as they discuss. IT is the reason the web has made modern politics so polarized.
BTW Good Work on the expose of the population control nut.

74 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:51:37am
75 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:52:18am

re: #27 Killgore Trout

It’s quite possible that this is going to result in another Tim McVeigh or something similar.

The steady drumbeat of crazy, pounding “secession”, “armed revolution”, “illegitimate POTUS”, and other such crap IS being heard by the real right wing extremists, folks.

That’s the guy in his basement reading Free Republic, maybe listening to a little Glenn Beck, sometimes reading a little Malkin. That’s the guy who doesn’t really know much about politics but knows he doesn’t like Obama and sometimes thinks those folks on StormFront make sense. That’s a guy stockpiling ammo and guns. That’s a guy who maybe always was a little off anyway, and just lost his job.

That’s the kind of ‘lone wolf’ the DHS report was talking about.

The worry isn’t “Free Republic is going to overthrow the government.”

The worry is there are lunatics out there who are getting this rhetoric in a lot of places, using it to to point and aim their resentment, and free republic’s own founder just added himself to the chorus of voices in their crazy heads.

76 zombie  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:52:19am

re: #72 Last Mohican

Wasn’t Pamela Geller going to overthrow the government too? I hope the Freepers don’t pick the same day as her. That would be awkward.

No, we’re the People’s American Liberation Army of Freedom! They’re the American Freedom Army of People’s Liberation!

77 VegasRick  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:52:20am

re: #71 Alouette

Oh crap.

I posted at FR for years and I still have an account there, though I haven’t posted for a long time. Should I post an “opus” (FRspeak for “flounce”) and get my ass ZOTTED?

When you registered, did you have to sign on the zotted line?
/

78 anotherindyfilmguy  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:52:35am

re: #72 Last Mohican

Wasn’t Pamela Geller going to overthrow the government too? I hope the Freepers don’t pick the same day as her. That would be awkward.

Maybe they could have a “love in” ala the 1960’s minus the beads etc…

79 Sergeant Major  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:53:06am

re: #70 zombie
I could only imagine….but really, would any less be accomplished than is being accomplished right now with some of our elected officials

80 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:54:51am

I’ve seen what 120mm canister rounds do to amateur warriors. Don’t go there, nutburgers.

81 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:55:22am
82 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:56:03am

re: #72 Last Mohican

Wasn’t Pamela Geller going to overthrow the government too? I hope the Freepers don’t pick the same day as her. That would be awkward.

There are two rallies in DC on the same day. Not sure which one Crazy Pam is speaking at.

83 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:56:22am

re: #76 zombie

No, we’re the People’s American Liberation Army of Freedom! They’re the American Freedom Army of People’s Liberation!

Splitters!

84 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:57:11am

re: #80 Shiplord Kirel

Here’s one of the comments…..

If the entire military and all law enforcement decided to side against the citizenry and Constitution (fat chance) they’d still be outnumbered 10 to one.


They think they have a chance. It only takes one idiot to take action and a lot of people could get hurt.

85 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:57:18am
86 VegasRick  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:57:26am

Watson’s blowing it.

87 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:58:32am

Seriously, it’s time to purge the Republican Party. Four years ago, we had some fun mocking DU for their purge of the Naderites but the otherwise delusional lefties might well have been on to something. We have to get these nuts out, or forever be a marginal and eccentric protest party with no chance of real power.
That seems to be fine with many of the real leaders of the fruitbat GOP, they would be perfectly happy if the Party of Lincoln never wins another election as long as it can still supply a gullible market for their books, videos, and health supplements.

88 wahabicorridor  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:58:41am

How old are these people? Seriously? The ’60s were some of the most violent years in our history. Do they really want to go there?

89 Syrah  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:58:56am

re: #50 zombie

Fellow freepers.

It seems places like Free Republic, Democratic Underground and Infowars are just big online “Truth or Dare” games where people egg each other on to say the most extreme things. The further out you go, the higher your status.

The internet equivalent of the viking boast.

90 anotherindyfilmguy  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:58:59am

Picking the least effective way to enforce some kind of change… after all the Senators/Reps have to go home at some point where the constituents can make their feelings known to them at town hall meetings with less layers of security etc… bug the crap out of them at the local meetings until they change their M.O., or not… sigh… storming D.C. with an unknown variable amount of self minded folks on an impromptu basis is certainly not the best plan and would most likely give the O’ an excuse to declare martial law and really screw the country over…

91 J.S.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:59:18am

re: #28 MandyManners

exactly. Someone (or should I say, “somewone” in a baby voice), the widdle baby, wants attention…O brother.

92 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:59:29am
93 Wendya  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:59:32am

re: #8 Rolltideroll

I swear, they just don;t get that the way to win elections in a republic is to get more people to vote in line with your views.

Actually, the way to win elections is to gradually remove people from the income tax rolls and give them goodies paid for by their neighbor’s labor.

94 anotherindyfilmguy  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:00:23am

re: #93 Wendya

Actually, the way to win elections is to gradually remove people from the income tax rolls and give them goodies paid for by their neighbor’s labor.

It’ll keep working until there’s no more goodies to give out… then what happens?

95 J.S.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:00:33am

Now I’m going to read: “The Soul of Iran” (two thumbs down, btw, to Majd).

96 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:00:39am
97 Rolltideroll  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:01:09am

re: #93 Wendya

Touche.

98 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:01:20am

re: #84 Killgore Trout

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in numbers. Look how that phenomenon affected the election?

99 wahabicorridor  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:01:29am

ok, hubby wants meatloaf for dinner which means a grocery run.

see ya!

100 Syrah  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:01:38am

re: #93 Wendya

Actually, the way to win elections is to gradually remove people from the income tax rolls and give them goodies paid for by their neighbor’s labor.

OPM is very addictive. Once they get hooked on the welfare/entitlement injections, they become slaves to the pushers.

101 Lincolntf  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:01:42am

re: #94 anotherindyfilmguy

Then we do it more!!!!

-Joe Biden

102 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:01:45am

I call for a national referendum on this president. In November 2012. There’s one on the schedule, anyhow.

103 Last Mohican  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:01:54am

re: #80 Shiplord Kirel

I’ve seen what 120mm canister rounds do to amateur warriors. Don’t go there, nutburgers.

I was curious, so I googled. That is one mother of a riot shotgun.

104 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:02:12am
105 debutaunt  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:04:37am

re: #78 anotherindyfilmguy

Maybe they could have a “love in” ala the 1960’s minus the beads etc…

Make love not war!

Recreate 69!

106 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:04:39am
107 solomonpanting  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:06:08am

re: #102 EmmmieG

I call for a national referendum on this president. In November 2012. There’s one on the schedule, anyhow.

re: #106 taxfreekiller

The “O” hole is about due a “temper tantrum” be prepared.

Well, Obama had his moment.

108 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:06:19am

Don’t want to be an alarmist, but whole suburbs and survival mini-retreats are about to sink into the ground under the weight of all the ammunition that’s been hoarded the past 6 months. With all the super-heated rhetoric flying around, at least some of that could cook off.

109 albusteve  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:06:27am

re: #87 Shiplord Kirel

the vast millions that don’t vote have no clue…nor are they gonna get one…there will be no purge in the manner you suggest imo

110 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:06:43am

re: #76 zombie

This might be fun! We could invite the Americans for Progressive Progress through Progressivism for the counter point!

111 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:06:47am
112 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:07:35am

re: #87 Shiplord Kirel

Seriously, it’s time to purge the Republican Party. Four years ago, we had some fun mocking DU for their purge of the Naderites but the otherwise delusional lefties might well have been on to something. We have to get these nuts out, or forever be a marginal and eccentric protest party with no chance of real power.
That seems to be fine with many of the real leaders of the fruitbat GOP, they would be perfectly happy if the Party of Lincoln never wins another election as long as it can still supply a gullible market for their books, videos, and health supplements.

Notice that the Dems didn’t start winning elections until 2006. They had to purge the Nader people, and start looking at why they were losing elections, instead of whining about stolen elections and an unfair media.

You can’t win unless you grab independents, moderates, and the centre.

You can’t win by purging everyone but the extremist elements.

But that’s what the GOP is currently doing. They say everyone is a RINO, and they’re crying that they only lost because of the media— stupid voters— any excuse other than reality: You lose an election because the electorate wanted the other guy.

The GOP has to purge the extremist elements and forge a philosophy that attracts moderates, independents, and people in the centre. If they really endorse fiscal conservatism, a lot of people who are Democrats would vote for them too.

113 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:08:28am

re: #41 Rolltideroll

The irony being it makes Obama more likely to be reelected.

Nah. The call for arms is a futile attempt at attention, as another poster pointed out. If Obama is elected for another 4 years it will be because the GOP chose a lame duck to oppose him. It’s my opinion that the majority of people who blog are armchair warriors.

114 Randall Gross  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:09:03am

I think the Beatles say it best

115 albusteve  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:09:59am

re: #112 iceweasel

BDS and the sycophant MSM worked out well for the left…and look at the results…a madhouse of thieves and liars ripping off the public…you can nuance it to death but I hope the GOP does not take any advice from you

116 solomonpanting  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:10:05am

Hand out the arms and ammo
We’re going to blast our way through here
We’ve got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution’s here, and you know it’s right
And you know that it’s right

We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together

117 Randall Gross  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:10:58am

For the above song replace “Chairman Mao” with “Ron Paul”
………..

118 Kronocide  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:11:48am

re: #108 Shiplord Kirel

What’s ironic is some would call that crazy talk!

119 AuntAcid  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:13:05am

“…millions to march on D.C….”

…that’s a lot of fruit cups.

120 poteen  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:13:25am

After reading comments, their unintended consequence is going to be FBI overtime pay. I think some visits are in order.

121 sattv4u2  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:13:25am

re: #112 iceweasel

The “nader people” were NOT purged from the dems, as they were mostly never IN it, opting instead for votimg for
Nader
Green Party candidates
McKinney
and a whole host of others
They weren’t “losing elections” They had their run, the repubs had theirs, the dems came back, the repubs again in turn, and now (2006 and 2008) the dems once again

All that stated, the pendulum WILL swing both ways again, the next one favoring the party that is OUT of power

Is that way now,,, has been that way since the end of the Bull Moose party

122 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:14:55am

re: #115 albusteve

you can nuance it to death but I hope the GOP does not take any advice from you

If the GOP wants to do the exact opposite of what I’ve recommended, they’ll ignore all calls for fiscal conservatism, double up on appeals to social conservatism, run Palin/Sanford or Palin/anyone in 2012, make anti-abortion a permanent plank, also homophobia, also creationism.

Good luck with all that, buddy.

Me, I’d like to see two parties, You apparently want a permanent Democratic majority.

123 itellu3times  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:15:14am
Free Republic Founder Calls for Revolution

Hope and Change!

/so what else is new

124 itellu3times  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:15:45am

Anyway, LGF is much more radical than that, LGF calls for Evolution!

125 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:16:22am
126 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:16:53am

Free Republic was too much for even Steve Gilbert over at Sweetness and Light. From 2007:
Déjà Vu — “Meltdown” At Free Republic [Link: sweetness-light.com…]

127 sattv4u2  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:16:59am

re: #122 iceweasel

also homophobia,

Thats a permanent plank of the republican party?

128 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:17:24am

re: #121 sattv4u2

You can see it as the ‘pendulum swinging’. I think it has something more to do with political philosophies and what the electorate is offered.

129 jaunte  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:17:26am

re: #124 itellu3times

Anyway, LGF is much more radical than that, LGF calls for Evolution!

“Adapt, adjust, and overcome!”

130 Bloodnok  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:17:32am

re: #121 sattv4u2

The “nader people” were NOT purged from the dems, as they were mostly never IN it, opting instead for votimg for
Nader
Green Party candidates
McKinney
and a whole host of others
They weren’t “losing elections” They had their run, the repubs had theirs, the dems came back, the repubs again in turn, and now (2006 and 2008) the dems once again

All that stated, the pendulum WILL swing both ways again, the next one favoring the party that is OUT of power

Is that way now,,, has been that way since the end of the Bull Moose party

So it’s that easy? Lose an election, do nothing and then just wait and everything will be okay again?

131 sattv4u2  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:18:32am

re: #128 iceweasel

You can see it as the ‘pendulum swinging’. I think it has something more to do with political philosophies and what the electorate is offered.

Study history, circa 1945 to present then get back to me!

132 Jimmah  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:19:24am

How can America be a beacon for democracy to the world with these nuts clamouring for a third world type political reality at home?

133 austin_blue  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:19:27am

re: #130 Bloodnok

So it’s that easy? Lose an election, do nothing and then just wait and everything will be okay again?

I think Ice nailed it with #112.

134 Kronocide  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:19:36am

Homophobia is a plank of the GOP? News to me.

135 sattv4u2  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:20:07am

re: #130 Bloodnok

So it’s that easy? Lose an election, do nothing and then just wait and everything will be okay again?

No, hard core conservatives won’t change, neither do hard core “progressives. What DOES change is the middle, and historically at some point they ALWAYS get tired of whichever side is in charge and ALWAYS vote the opposite

136 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:20:37am
137 itellu3times  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:21:27am

re: #129 jaunte

“Adapt, adjust, and overcome!”

I’m working on a prehensile tail myself, I think it’s an appendage whose time has come, to work the mouse, or at least hold the beer while typing.

138 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:21:50am

re: #112 iceweasel

Sort of. We need to back to the roots of the party, and that means being conservative fiscally. The morality piece is also there, to include the religious right. What we should not do, however, is cater to the religious right at the expense of other conservatives. We do what Reagan did - we let the center come to us, we didn’t go to them. We made it OK for them to come to us, however. To say a moderate is what we need flies in the face of the McCain loss.

Also, Obama was not elected by an overwhelming majority, despite what the administration or DU may tell you. It was close.

139 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:21:56am

re: #134 BigPapa

Homophobia is a plank of the GOP? News to me.

Read the post again. I responded sarcastically to someone who said the GOP shouldn’t listen to me, by describing the exact opposite of the path I think the GOP should take.

140 sattv4u2  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:21:59am

re: #137 itellu3times

I’m working on a prehensile tail myself, I think it’s an appendage whose time has come, to work the mouse, or at least hold the beer while typing.

You’ll have to have all your pants alerted!

141 Bloodnok  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:22:34am

re: #131 sattv4u2

Study history, circa 1945 to present then get back to me!

Would that be the history that showed the Republicans not holding a majority in the House for 40 years straight during that time? Was there a pendulum then?

142 Wendya  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:22:35am

re: #127 sattv4u2

also homophobia,

Thats a permanent plank of the republican party?

Along with racism and a return to slavery. //

143 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:23:04am
144 albusteve  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:23:19am

re: #133 austin_blue

I think Ice nailed it with #112.

I don’t think the donks had a clever grand plan for winning…they had ACORN, Soros, BDS, and the MSN all carrying water for a forth rate punk from Chicago…screaming BDS won the election, any other aspect is secondary and to believe otherwise is denial

145 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:23:27am

re: #138 ArmyWife

Obama was not elected by an overwhelming majority, despite what the administration or DU may tell you. It was close.

Not close enough, ha.

And not as close as either Bush election. It might be painful for you to hear, but it’s true.

146 sattv4u2  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:23:31am

re: #141 Bloodnok

Would that be the history that showed the Republicans not holding a majority in the House for 40 years straight during that time? Was there a pendulum then?

Seeing that they held the executive and for large parts of the time the judiciary, yes!

147 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:23:32am
148 Wendya  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:23:47am

re: #132 Jimmah

How can America be a beacon for democracy to the world with these nuts clamouring for a third world type political reality at home?

Well, they seem to love Obama.

149 Lincolntf  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:23:55am

re: #134 BigPapa

“Homophobic” was synonymous with “opposed to gay-marriage” until Obama said that marriage was between a man and a woman, at which point it reverted to just meaning “Republican”.
Fakest “rights” movement ever.

150 albusteve  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:24:13am

re: #139 iceweasel

Read the post again. I responded sarcastically to someone who said the GOP shouldn’t listen to me, by describing the exact opposite of the path I think the GOP should take.

bullshit…I offered no path

151 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:24:17am

re: #130 Bloodnok

So it’s that easy? Lose an election, do nothing and then just wait and everything will be okay again?

It depends upon how well (or poorly) the party in power does.

Eisenhower, Clinton and Dubya did well enough to win second terms, and Reagan did well enough to not only get re-elected, but to have his VP succeed him. Carter, otoh, was a Dem one-termer succeeded by a Repub, and although Nixon won re-election, when he resigned in his second term, his ad hoc successor, Gerald Ford, couldn’t get elected to a term of his own.

152 Bloodnok  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:24:25am

re: #146 sattv4u2

Seeing that they held the executive and for large parts of the time the judiciary, yes!

Sorry. Didn’t know those were the rules for this topic.

153 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:24:26am

re: #130 Bloodnok

no, and I don’t think that was the point, either (though I could be wrong, it wasn’t my post). We have some repairing to do in our party, but that repair does NOT include being Dem Lights. Funny how the liberals always give this to us as our answer, though, huh?

154 MJ  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:24:44am

Netanyahu finally tells the US to bug off. About time:

Israel rejects US call to halt Jerusalem project

…On Sunday, Netanyahu told his Cabinet there would be no limits on Jewish construction anywhere in “unified Jerusalem.”
“We cannot accept the fact that Jews wouldn’t be entitled to live and buy anywhere in Jerusalem,” Netanyahu declared, calling Israeli sovereignty over the entire city “indisputable.”
“I can only imagine what would happen if someone suggested Jews could not live in certain neighborhoods in New York, London, Paris or Rome. There would certainly be a major international outcry,” Netanyahu said.

[Link: news.yahoo.com…]

It is time Israel start’s saying no to Obama and his lap dog Clinton. Israel is a sovereign State and if they continue to act as Obama’s door mat, they will continue to be treated like one.

155 LSD  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:25:39am

For Every Action, There Is An Equal And Opposite Reaction

156 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:25:47am

re: #145 iceweasel

Wasn’t talking about the Bush election, I was talking about THIS election. And it wasn’t painful at all.

157 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:25:50am
158 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:26:05am

re: #130 Bloodnok

So it’s that easy? Lose an election, do nothing and then just wait and everything will be okay again?

That’s not what he meant, and you know it.

In this case, with Øbama, that’s all that needed - wait. His policies are exactly opposite what’s needed, both domestically and on foreign policy. If he doesn’t get us killed first he’ll make us all broke.

159 solomonpanting  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:26:13am

re: #139 iceweasel

Read the post again. I responded sarcastically to someone who said the GOP shouldn’t listen to me, by describing the exact opposite of the path I think the GOP should take.

Then you should have included throwing puppies out of airplanes. Thanks not a plank, either.

160 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:26:33am
161 sattv4u2  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:26:41am

re: #152 Bloodnok

Sorry. Didn’t know those were the rules for this topic.

rules!?!?! we don’t need no stinkin rules!!

Seriously though, most voters know the consequence of voting for a president of a party. They know they get the cabinet and judicial choices that go along with it

162 itellu3times  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:28:05am

re: #138 ArmyWife

Sort of. We need to back to the roots of the party, and that means being conservative fiscally.

Let’s clarify what it means to be “conservative fiscally”. A lot of libloons think that means the Republicans never want to spend anything at all (at least outside of Halliburton), and there are too many Republicans who agree with that, citing free market ideas. Well, of course, it’s an exaggeration, unless you’re Luap Nor, and even he may not be against, say, street lights and municipal sewer systems.

And now we come to health care.

The Republicans have to have a plan to, yes, spend, on the government’s dime (and yes, I know it’s really the citizens’ dimes, but even so), because that’s just where we are these days. We make the street lights work, so OK health care will be a little more complicated, but let’s take it on and do it, and stop claiming it cannot be done.

I’d like “fiscally conservative” to mean “fiscally rational”, not miserly.

And isn’t that just the roots of the party, in Lincoln’s time when the Republicans were pro-technology (hey progressive?!), that allowed them to be anti-slavery?

Isn’t this the sort of point that zombie has agonized over several times?

163 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:28:41am

re: #135 sattv4u2

“What DOES change is the middle, and historically at some point they ALWAYS get tired of whichever side is in charge and ALWAYS vote the opposite” There is a lot of truth in that, especially regarding Presidential elections. Parties get stale and lose their luster.

164 Jimmah  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:28:55am

re: #148 Wendya

Well, they seem to love Obama.

They voted for their candidate - that’s how democracy works. The people we are talking about here are calling for revolution to circumvent the democratic process - they are the nuts.

165 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:29:10am

re: #159 solomonpanting

Then you should have included throwing puppies out of airplanes. Thanks not a plank, either.

Didn’t make my list. Lots of items didn’t. Deal.

166 sattv4u2  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:29:31am

SO ,,,, here I am on “vacation” sitting in a hotel lobby outside of Boston Mass.

Down the hall is a pool. Outside is an 84 degree day with no humidity. A 15 minute drive is family

And here I am, on LGF!!!

167 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:29:40am

re: #153 ArmyWife

no, and I don’t think that was the point, either (though I could be wrong, it wasn’t my post). We have some repairing to do in our party, but that repair does NOT include being Dem Lights. Funny how the liberals always give this to us as our answer, though, huh?

It is not necessary to be the anti-evolution, anti-abortion, anti-gay-rights party in order to avoid being Dem Lite. It is only necessary to continue to embrace a robust pro-democracy foreign policy and begin to once again embrace fiscal responsibility.

168 sattv4u2  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:29:54am

re: #163 MrPaulRevere

thanks

169 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:30:19am
170 Wendya  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:30:26am

re: #164 Jimmah

They voted for their candidate - that’s how democracy works. The people we are talking about here are calling for revolution to circumvent the democratic process - they are the nuts.

I was speaking of foreign countries, not American voters.

171 austin_blue  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:30:45am

re: #144 albusteve

I don’t think the donks had a clever grand plan for winning…they had ACORN, Soros, BDS, and the MSN all carrying water for a forth rate punk from Chicago…screaming BDS won the election, any other aspect is secondary and to believe otherwise is denial

No one gave the Ds a chance to get 59 Senators before the election, or as many House seats as they gained, and I don’t think the factors you mentioned were that involved in those gains. Did they help O? Sure, but it’s hard to explain the rest of their gains without believing that they had a plan and that it worked very well for them.

Just my $.02.

172 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:30:45am

re: #164 Jimmah

They voted for their candidate - that’s how democracy works. The people we are talking about here are calling for revolution to circumvent the democratic process - they are the nuts.

Exactly/ Democracy means sometimes your party loses. It’s profoundly undemocratic to call for a revolution when you’re pouty that your guy lost.

173 fire at night  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:30:50am

With guys like Jim Robinson around who needs Liberals to destroy or marginalize the conservative movement?

/shakes head

174 Flyers1974  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:31:36am

re: #112 iceweasel

Notice that the Dems didn’t start winning elections until 2006. They had to purge the Nader people, and start looking at why they were losing elections, instead of whining about stolen elections and an unfair media.

You can’t win unless you grab independents, moderates, and the centre.

You can’t win by purging everyone but the extremist elements.

But that’s what the GOP is currently doing. They say everyone is a RINO, and they’re crying that they only lost because of the media— stupid voters— any excuse other than reality: You lose an election because the electorate wanted the other guy.

The GOP has to purge the extremist elements and forge a philosophy that attracts moderates, independents, and people in the centre. If they really endorse fiscal conservatism, a lot of people who are Democrats would vote for them too.

But didn’t the Democrats get a huge assist from the Iraq War and then the economy? I’d say many of those 2006 voters who weren’t already Democrats were voting against Republicans rather than for Democrats. Did the Democrats really change (aside from the small changes which always occur from election to election) or did they just let the Republicans hang themselves?

175 Pianobuff  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:31:38am

re: #112 iceweasel

Notice that the Dems didn’t start winning elections until 2006. They had to purge the Nader people, and start looking at why they were losing elections, instead of whining about stolen elections and an unfair media.

You can’t win unless you grab independents, moderates, and the centre.

You can’t win by purging everyone but the extremist elements.

But that’s what the GOP is currently doing. They say everyone is a RINO, and they’re crying that they only lost because of the media— stupid voters— any excuse other than reality: You lose an election because the electorate wanted the other guy.

The GOP has to purge the extremist elements and forge a philosophy that attracts moderates, independents, and people in the centre. If they really endorse fiscal conservatism, a lot of people who are Democrats would vote for them too.

I’ve seen polling and pollsters that supports almost any position on way R’s lost the 2008 election (including some that contend that the only reason the R’s even had a remote chance was because of Palin). I’ll give you my opinion - since the pollsters don’t agree with each other anyway why not.

I hold that the die was cast for the 2008 election long before the candidates were even selected. I believe little had to do with the factionism and other criteria you cite. I believe much more had to do with a war that had exhausted a nation as well as Rs not distinguishing themselves from D’s as fiscal conservatives (which you do cite). These two things alone gave D’s sufficient advantage to win almost any match-up at that time.

The other stuff….. minor beans.

Restoring a R majority will have more to do with how well those in office vote and how well they sell/evangalize fiscally conservative solutions to the economy and prosperity. Trumping all of this is how the economy actually performs. Barring a catastrophic-like world or 9/11 type event, if the economy is recovering pretty well in 2010/2012, the Dems will retain a majority and Obama will be re-elected. It’s that simple to me.

176 Lincolntf  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:31:39am

Cink wins (pending a superfluous putt).
Great job by Watson, anyway.
Good for Cink, first Major.

177 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:31:59am

re: #162 itellu3times

I’m happy to help define fiscally conservative, but I can’t imagine health care being a part of that definition. It isn’t a “right”, and I’ve seen first hand just how well government run health care works. It isn’t pretty. Roadways and sewer systems make sense - health insurance for all? not so much. A strong military? Put my tax dollars to work!

Perhaps the first step is defining the role of government?

178 Wendya  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:32:04am

re: #172 iceweasel

Exactly/ Democracy means sometimes your party loses. It’s profoundly undemocratic to call for a revolution when you’re pouty that your guy lost.

Is it also profoundly undemocratic to call your president a war criminal and call for his trial and execution because you didn’t like his decisions?

179 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:32:07am

re: #173 fire at night

With guys like Jim Robinson around who needs Liberals to destroy or marginalize the conservative movement?

/shakes head

Don’t need the MSM either!

180 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:32:09am
181 poteen  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:32:10am

re: #166 sattv4u2

SO ,,,, here I am on “vacation” sitting in a hotel lobby outside of Boston Mass.

Down the hall is a pool. Outside is an 84 degree day with no humidity. A 15 minute drive is family

And here I am, on LGF!!!

Junky!

182 albusteve  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:32:46am

re: #167 Salamantis

It is not necessary to be the anti-evolution, anti-abortion, anti-gay-rights party in order to avoid being Dem Lite. It is only necessary to continue to embrace a robust pro-democracy foreign policy and begin to once again embrace fiscal responsibility.

the three legged stool is a thing of beauty…until you dick around with it til it falls over

183 solomonpanting  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:33:06am

re: #169 buzzsawmonkey

Throwing puppies out of airplanes? Isn’t that the plank of the nuclear bichon freeze movement?

I guess I was off by a nuclear breeder.

184 sattv4u2  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:33:13am

re: #181 poteen

Junky!

Some one check me into The Betty Ford Clinic

185 sattv4u2  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:33:32am

Cya’s

186 Bloodnok  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:33:40am

re: #153 ArmyWife

no, and I don’t think that was the point, either (though I could be wrong, it wasn’t my post). We have some repairing to do in our party, but that repair does NOT include being Dem Lights. Funny how the liberals always give this to us as our answer, though, huh?

I wasn’t quoting your post so I was not addressing it.

There is 53% of the voting population who rejected the GOPs ideas. Finding out which ones aren’t resonating and seeing if they can be tossed aside is not becoming Dem-Lite. We can blame McCain for this, but it doesn’t explain why the GOP lost seats in Congress and governorships. Moving to the center does not imply moving past the center.

187 jaunte  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:34:05am

re: #178 Wendya

Is it also profoundly undemocratic to call your president a war criminal and call for his trial and execution because you didn’t like his decisions?

Current available answers:
1) “I won.”
2) “Deal.”

188 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:34:42am

re: #167 Salamantis

I am and will be anti-abortion, I am not a creationist, but have no issue allowing people to hold this belief outside of public school science class rooms, and if by “gay rights” you mean “gay marriage” count me out there, too. For the eleventith time, I do not care at all what 2 consenting adults do in the bedroom. I begin to care with this lifestyle is pushed on me - or my children for that matter.

189 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:34:47am

re: #125 taxfreekiller

Good thing, A.C.O.R.N. is such a clean honest operation and not a fringe bunch of vote fraud Democrats.

I don’t plan to mute my criticism of ACORN but I have frankly been a little uneasy about it.
On the one hand, I still believe it is a serious abuse of power for the administration to give federal funding and, essentially, federal power to what is indisputably a partisan political advocacy group. This is true even though the abuse is orders of maginitude less severe than kooks like Michelle Bachmann claim.
On the other hand, I don’t want to incite some gun-shop commando to take pot-shots at the census takers when they come up his driveway.

190 Macker  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:34:51am

re: #151 Salamantis

It depends upon how well (or poorly) the party in power does.

Eisenhower, Clinton and Dubya did well enough to win second terms, and Reagan did well enough to not only get re-elected, but to have his VP succeed him. Carter, otoh, was a Dem one-termer succeeded by a Repub, and although Nixon won re-election, when he resigned in his second term, his ad hoc successor, Gerald Ford, couldn’t get elected to a term of his own.

That’s because he spared the country of the chaos which would have come, had he not pardoned Nixon.

191 poteen  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:35:26am

re: #184 sattv4u2

Some one check me into The Betty Ford Clinic

It’s a lot hotter out in the desert.

192 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:35:51am

re: #186 Bloodnok

I think we were saying the same thing - I was supporting your position.

193 Wendya  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:36:08am

re: #187 jaunte

Current available answers:
1) “I won.”
2) “Deal.”

I love it when Obama throws out the “I won” stuff. The mask slips and the incredibly immature man behind it peeks out for everyone to see. I hope he continues on that path.

194 Jimmah  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:36:13am

re: #170 Wendya

I was speaking of foreign countries, not American voters.

That wasn’t clear, but sure - people in foreign countries generally like Obama. Doesn’t dispute my point that a coup-installed Hillary (it’s hard to believe these idiots are actually forcing us to have conversations like this btw) wouldn’t exactly enhance America’s image as a beacon for Democracy.

195 wiffersnapper  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:36:42am

Dude, where’s my party?

196 itellu3times  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:37:10am

re: #177 ArmyWife

I’m happy to help define fiscally conservative, but I can’t imagine health care being a part of that definition. It isn’t a “right”, and I’ve seen first hand just how well government run health care works. It isn’t pretty. Roadways and sewer systems make sense - health insurance for all? not so much. A strong military? Put my tax dollars to work!

Perhaps the first step is defining the role of government?

Maybe not a “right” so much as a “safety net”.

And if government run health care has not worked well, say at the VA, let’s fix it and not just moan about it.

Not saying it’s easy, but let’s not be afraid of the work.

I’ll repeat again, both parties were all ready to do health care in 1993, until Hillary excluded the Republicans from planning and negotiations. The rancid taint of the Clintons still poisons relations between the parties and has lead to disasters like Pelosi - but they see it as a great victory, now that they have the White House and a supermajority in the Senate.

197 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:37:41am

re: #192 ArmyWife

Or not, never mind. If you have to explain the post, it made no sense to begin with so I take responsibility for a poorly written post.

198 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:38:10am

re: #178 Wendya

Is it also profoundly undemocratic to call your president a war criminal and call for his trial and execution because you didn’t like his decisions?

…and these were mainstream democrats making these accusations, unlike the fringe of the Right making such today.

199 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:38:14am

re: #182 albusteve

the three legged stool is a thing of beauty…until you dick around with it til it falls over

That’s right…and when repubs abandon fiscal responsibility, they’re gonna topple - plus, if they allow themselves to be continue to be held in thrall to a reactionary socon domestic social agenda, it’ll be MY vote that kicks their sorry sanctimonious puritanically theocratic asses over.

And there’s a helluva lot of moderates, independents, and centrists who would rather suffer a porcupine enema than vote for the Domestic Social Aganda Christian Fundy Sharia Party. Enough to banish the Repubs to the political hinterlands until the cows come home and lay down and fucking die.

200 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:38:20am

re: #174 Flyers1974

But didn’t the Democrats get a huge assist from the Iraq War and then the economy? I’d say many of those 2006 voters who weren’t already Democrats were voting against Republicans rather than for Democrats. Did the Democrats really change (aside from the small changes which always occur from election to election) or did they just let the Republicans hang themselves?

re: #175 Pianobuff

The repubs did hang themselves, to a large extent. And in some ways, the Dems could have run anyone and that person would have a huge advantage purely because he or she didn’t have an R behind them. Iraq and the economy mattered hugely.

But as was pointed out above, the Dems also won big in 2006, and this didn’t all just happen because people in general didn’t like Repubs anymore. A lot of people on the left were working on the Democratic Party to change it and their tactics.

I don’t think the current GOP strategy of pandering to their most extremist members is a winning one.

201 Kronocide  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:38:28am

re: #149 Lincolntf

“Homophobic” was synonymous with “opposed to gay-marriage” until Obama said that marriage was between a man and a woman, at which point it reverted to just meaning “Republican”.
Fakest “rights” movement ever.

That’s exactly it. However, I don’t necessarily think Ice was going there.

202 Jimmah  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:38:52am

re: #178 Wendya

Is it also profoundly undemocratic to call your president a war criminal and call for his trial and execution because you didn’t like his decisions?

I’d say yes, it is, but one loses any moral high ground when one acts the same way when the tables are turned.

203 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:38:54am

re: #196 itellu3times

I meant Canada and GB. Really bad. Why is it broken? The cost? Are there other ways to address it without government “help”? I’d say plenty -

204 MJ  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:39:07am

re: #154 MJ

Netanyahu finally tells the US to bug off. About time:

Israel rejects US call to halt Jerusalem project

[Link: news.yahoo.com…]

It is time Israel start’s saying no to Obama and his lap dog Clinton. Israel is a sovereign State and if they continue to act as Obama’s door mat, they will continue to be treated like one.

This is rich:

..The compound, which was acquired by American businessman Irwin Moskowitz in the 1980s, originally belonged to Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, and then served as a hotel from 1945 until the 1967 Six Day War. Most recently, the site was rented to the Jerusalem border police as a base…


[Link: www.jpost.com…]

The Mufti, of course, was a Nazi sympathizer.

205 Wendya  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:39:18am

re: #196 itellu3times

The rancid taint of the Clintons still poisons relations between the parties and has lead to disasters like Pelosi - but they see it as a great victory, now that they have the White House and a supermajority in the Senate.

They have to overcome the blue dogs first. Moderate to conservative democrats know this stuff isn’t polling well in their states and if they go along to show loyalty, they may well find themselves kicked to the curb by the voters.

206 albusteve  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:39:18am

BDS and the MSM that helped shove it down peoples throats is a powerful toxin…people will believe anything when they are beat over the head with it for eight years…ask em why they hate Bush so much and you can barely get an honest, coherent answer

207 solomonpanting  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:39:43am

If health care reform is working so well in Tennessee and Massachusettes, why wouldn’t it be a nation-wide success?

208 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:40:04am

re: #188 ArmyWife

I am and will be anti-abortion, I am not a creationist, but have no issue allowing people to hold this belief outside of public school science class rooms, and if by “gay rights” you mean “gay marriage” count me out there, too. For the eleventith time, I do not care at all what 2 consenting adults do in the bedroom. I begin to care with this lifestyle is pushed on me - or my children for that matter.

By gay rights I mean gay civil unions that entail granting gay couples entering into them the selfsame rights that straight marriages do, without the name.

209 quiet man  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:40:09am

re: #206 albusteve
The left prefers non coherent answers..saves tham all that “thinking”

210 Wendya  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:40:20am

re: #200 iceweasel

I don’t think the current GOP strategy of pandering to their most extremist members is a winning one.

Yet that’s exactly what the left did to win.

211 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:40:25am

re: #199 Salamantis

That’s right…and when repubs abandon fiscal responsibility, they’re gonna topple - plus, if they allow themselves to be continue to be held in thrall to a reactionary socon domestic social agenda, it’ll be MY vote that kicks their sorry sanctimonious puritanically theocratic asses over.

And there’s a helluva lot of moderates, independents, and centrists who would rather suffer a porcupine enema than vote for the Domestic Social Aganda Christian Fundy Sharia Party. Enough to banish the Repubs to the political hinterlands until the cows come home and lay down and fucking die.

Damn straight.

212 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:40:33am

re: #208 Salamantis

Tell me what rights they don’t have that heteros do.

213 Kronocide  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:41:25am

Ice advocates throwing puppies out of airplanes? Yikes!

214 Wendya  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:41:26am

re: #212 ArmyWife

Tell me what rights they don’t have that heteros do.

Actual rights vs imaginary rights?

215 itellu3times  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:41:48am

re: #203 ArmyWife

I meant Canada and GB. Really bad. Why is it broken? The cost? Are there other ways to address it without government “help”? I’d say plenty -

Well in GB they drink beer warm, so we have a head start already, see?

I’m saying that politically, I cannot see the Republicans gaining on a national basis without embracing government health care. And I say it can (and should) be done well within conservative guidelines.

216 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:41:59am
217 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:42:03am

re: #210 Wendya

Yet that’s exactly what the left did to win.

Honey, believe that if you like.

218 jaunte  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:42:30am

Anyone willing to examine the Administration’s nuance on this?

“We cannot accept the notion that Jews will not have the right to buy apartments specifically in Jerusalem. I can only imagine what would happen if they were forbidden from purchasing apartments in New York or London; there would be an international outcry.”
[Link: www.jpost.com…]

219 itellu3times  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:43:05am

re: #207 solomonpanting

If health care reform is working so well in Tennessee and Massachusettes, why wouldn’t it be a nation-wide success?

Well, it is spreading.

But it’s not really health care reform at all in my book, mandating insurance. That’s what you do when you want to pretend you’re doing something.

220 solomonpanting  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:43:13am

re: #213 BigPapa

Ice advocates throwing puppies out of airplanes? Yikes!

Only airedales.

221 albusteve  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:43:26am

re: #199 Salamantis

That’s right…and when repubs abandon fiscal responsibility, they’re gonna topple - plus, if they allow themselves to be continue to be held in thrall to a reactionary socon domestic social agenda, it’ll be MY vote that kicks their sorry sanctimonious puritanically theocratic asses over.

And there’s a helluva lot of moderates, independents, and centrists who would rather suffer a porcupine enema than vote for the Domestic Social Aganda Christian Fundy Sharia Party. Enough to banish the Repubs to the political hinterlands until the cows come home and lay down and fucking die.

and I would include in the tinkering the disaster of an immigration bill Bush supported, which many considered a security issue….anyway, like I’ve said, conservatism is evolving and my principle are probably dead politically

222 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:44:05am

re: #212 ArmyWife

Tell me what rights they don’t have that heteros do.

Legally recognized marriages under the law in ALL 50 STATES.

Don’t play dumb.

223 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:44:13am

re: #212 ArmyWife

Tell me what rights they don’t have that heteros do.

Well, for one thing, gauy civi8l unions aren’t even available in a lot of states. And for them to confer the same rights as straight marriages do, they would have to automatically cede spousal inheritance rights, spousal employment benefit rights, spousal medical decision rights, tax equity, and a bunch of other things.

224 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:44:19am
225 jaunte  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:45:28am

re: #224 buzzsawmonkey

Redlining ok for some, not for others.

226 avanti  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:45:40am

re: #22 Macker

With most of the dead being on the liberals’ side…they don’t have as many guns as conservatives do.

No question, we will be outgunned, but since the POTUS is CIC, they’ll be fighting the National Guard if there are guns, not the libs.

227 itellu3times  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:45:41am

re: #218 jaunte

Anyone willing to examine the Administration’s nuance on this?

“We cannot accept the notion that Jews will not have the right to buy apartments specifically in Jerusalem. I can only imagine what would happen if they were forbidden from purchasing apartments in New York or London; there would be an international outcry.”
[Link: www.jpost.com…]

Of course that’s ridiculous, Jews can buy apartments in Jerusalem as long as they pay the jizya. Y’know, to pay for Palestinian health care.
/

228 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:45:52am

re: #214 Wendya

exactly.

229 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:46:58am

re: #214 Wendya

Actual rights vs imaginary rights?

re: #228 ArmyWife

exactly.

See my #223.

230 Macker  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:47:05am

re: #208 Salamantis

I would guess that most conservatives would have no problem with civil unions. Isn’t that was most European countries did before their mad rush to legalize gay marriage so folks like Elton John could do so?

231 Pianobuff  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:47:21am

re: #200 iceweasel

re: #175 Pianobuff

The repubs did hang themselves, to a large extent. And in some ways, the Dems could have run anyone and that person would have a huge advantage purely because he or she didn’t have an R behind them. Iraq and the economy mattered hugely.

But as was pointed out above, the Dems also won big in 2006, and this didn’t all just happen because people in general didn’t like Repubs anymore. A lot of people on the left were working on the Democratic Party to change it and their tactics.

I don’t think the current GOP strategy of pandering to their most extremist members is a winning one.

You make some good points, but I’d also point out that a very large if not the dominant theme in elections for Dems since 2006 has been running against George Bush, not other R candidates, not R ideology but GWB. If I remember, in early 2006 is when his popularity dropped to the low 30s. I mean it’s a great strategy - so good that it’s still somewhat in effect today. Dem strategists basic theme for any candidate was to run against GWB and little else. So while you say it didn’t all just happen because people in general didn’t like Repubs anymore, I’d argue that much of it did happen because people (the voters that could swing the election) didn’t like Bush anymore - doesn’t make me feel great to say it but that’s what it is.

I’d also say it was a much bigger factor than D thinning of ranks.

232 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:49:15am
233 albusteve  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:49:47am

re: #231 Pianobuff

Congress gained donks in spit of single digit performance numbers…BDS

234 Render  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:50:18am

“March?”

Has he seen the traffic around DC? What are they gonna do, link arms and march south down all eight lanes of Rt 95 at rush hour?

Does Freeperman understand that Maryland is a Democrat stronghold? Not likely to raise millions of Freepish minions around here…

Does Freeperman understand that local law enforcement, (revenue collectors of the state), is not likely to take kindly to a Freepish march against their employers?

“Bring guns?”

Freeperman in California wants to start a civil war/revolution around my house? Freeperman, I can promise you that if that happens, you personally will not enjoy the results.

The US military does not swear its allegiance to the President, the nation, or the people. The US military swears its oath to defend the Constitution that Freeperman wants to attack.

The troops will be brought home to deal with Freeper loons, (yes, they will. W wouldn’t have done that, but I have Zero doubt that 0 would).

The battlefields so hard won, the combat posts and fire bases named for the soldiers that died making them, would be abandoned to the enemy. The suddenly and quite unexpectedly victorious enemy, flush with a resurgence inspired by their last minute miracle reprieve, would gain billions of new hardcore volunteers. Whole governments, nominally on our side, would switch sides rapidly, joining the swelling enemy ranks.

===

Like the Kostard circa 2002 -2008, the Freepertard clearly has not thought this through very far. At least not further then his taxable donations bank account.

LOGICAL
CONCLUSIONS,
R

235 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:51:11am

re: #230 Macker

I would guess that most conservatives would have no problem with civil unions. Isn’t that was most European countries did before their mad rush to legalize gay marriage so folks like Elton John could do so?

It would also help if we don’t scream bloody murder about gays in the military; it hasn’t seemed to hurt the Canadians, the Brits or the Israelis.

As Barry Goldwater said; he couldn’t care less whether or not solders were straight, as long as they could shoot straight.

236 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:51:17am

re: #232 taxfreekiller

of some note observe how quick some are to put the National Guard on the people in this case yet when the deal went down at Kent State
just the 180 degree response,

odd this

It’s all bout who’s wielding the power.
Politics.

237 poteen  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:51:41am

re: #210 Wendya

Yet that’s exactly what the left did to win.

The Democrats pandered to their historic base. Unions and minority interest groups. They ‘campaigned’, if you will, the far left, knowing full well those votes were a foregone conclusion. What were the Kossacks gonna do, vote McCain?
The republicans need to take that same attitude toward far right. If they do they may free up resources to pull away some Democrat base and in- betweeners.

238 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:51:43am

re: #223 Salamantis

Inheritance - you can leave whatever you want to whoever you want, no matter what state in the Union you are in. This is why people leave millions to their cat.

Medical benefits - This isn’t a “right” for hetero or homosexuals. It is, however, a cold hard dollars and cents, issue. Many employers chose to offer benefits to non-married “partners” - good on them. I wouldn’t want this forced anymore than I would want “family” or “individual” forced.

You can achieve all the same medical decision making with a POA.

I’m not knowledgeable enough to take on tax equity, but others on this board are and have in the past. Maybe they will speak up?

239 RadicalRon  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:53:00am

And another flies over the cuckoo’s nest.

240 albusteve  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:53:07am

re: #234 Render

yo Render
thanks for that…I can be at your bunker in 6hrs

241 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:53:18am

re: #234 Render

“Bring guns?”

Freeperman in California wants to start a civil war/revolution around my house? Freeperman, I can promise you that if that happens, you personally will not enjoy the results.

The US military does not swear its allegiance to the President, the nation, or the people. The US military swears its oath to defend the Constitution that Freeperman wants to attack.

The troops will be brought home to deal with Freeper loons, (yes, they will. W wouldn’t have done that, but I have Zero doubt that 0 would).

Freeperman, meet Reaperman.

242 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:54:39am

If you ever want to amuse yourself briefly, notice that Free Republic and Democratic Underground are almost exactly identical. All you have to do is switch some names around and substitute “liberal” for “conservative” here and there. The two are indistinguishable otherwise, and I chuckle heartily at the fact that neither one recognizes the reflection of themselves in the other.

243 3 Sigma E  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:54:40am

I’m so glad JimRob kicked me out of there.

244 rightymouse  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:54:46am

re: #188 ArmyWife

I am and will be anti-abortion, I am not a creationist, but have no issue allowing people to hold this belief outside of public school science class rooms, and if by “gay rights” you mean “gay marriage” count me out there, too. For the eleventith time, I do not care at all what 2 consenting adults do in the bedroom. I begin to care with this lifestyle is pushed on me - or my children for that matter.

I told my gay friend that I would prefer my son learn about the existence of homosexual unions by being around him and his long-term partner than at school from any activist teacher & curriculum. My son accepts my friend and his partner like any other adult couple in our lives.

245 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:54:50am

Charles, the loons have a thread up about LGF already: [Link: www.google.com…]

246 avanti  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:56:18am

re: #84 Killgore Trout

Here’s one of the comments…..


They think they have a chance. It only takes one idiot to take action and a lot of people could get hurt.

They are living in a bubble, Obama’s approval is at 60%, not in the 20’s so they would not even represent the will of the citizens and the military would be the last of their worries. The worst scenario is that they actually got a few 1000 to show up, and the MSN covered it as a conservative revolt when in fact, it’s a tiny fringe.

247 Jimmah  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:57:01am

I better go and do some work. BBL

248 notamolly  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:57:38am

re: #13 albusteve

imagine the cluster fuck of millions of people marching on Washington…that right there proves a code red disconnect

Bonus Marchers take 2? I think Mr Robinson needs to read some history….

249 Kronocide  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:58:55am

re: #245 MrPaulRevere

Somebody thinks LGF is linking to them to mooch traffic. Yeah, exactly.

250 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 11:59:08am

re: #245 MrPaulRevere

Charles, the loons have a thread up about LGF already: [Link: www.google.com…]

They’re screaming already! Isn’t that nice. I see some claims that I confused Jim Robinson with “Jim Thompson.” Please note: Free Republic

Founded in September 1996 as a sole proprietorship by Founder, Chairman and President James C. “Jim” Robinson[5] of Fresno, California, Free Republic opened to the general public in February 1997. Robinson filed for LLC status on September 11, 1998.[6] It has always been a for-profit company and donations have never been tax exempt.

251 opnion  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:00:41pm

Obama has already lost Card Check, the Congressional budget Office has debunked the economics of his health plan, the Blue Dogs won’t rubber stamp his plan & his job approval numbers are dropping.
Things atre happening sooner than I thought they would & I doubt that Obamas ego can stand it.

252 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:02:47pm

Good grief, indeed!

/ Charles … why do you hate freepers?

/

253 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:03:19pm

re: #238 ArmyWife

Inheritance - you can leave whatever you want to whoever you want, no matter what state in the Union you are in. This is why people leave millions to their cat.

It’s a matter of what automatically happens in the absence of a will.

Medical benefits - This isn’t a “right” for hetero or homosexuals. It is, however, a cold hard dollars and cents, issue. Many employers chose to offer benefits to non-married “partners” - good on them. I wouldn’t want this forced anymore than I would want “family” or “individual” forced.

If employes wanna not offer medical benefits to any of their employers’ spouses, gay OR straight, fine, but to offer them to hetero wives and husbands and not to civil union gay spouses is exactly the kind of imbalance we’re talking about.

You can achieve all the same medical decision making with a POA.

Or without one, in the case of marriage. Which is the whole point. Gay civil union spouses shouldn’t have to do more to get the same things that straight marrieds get while doing nothing more.

I’m not knowledgeable enough to take on tax equity, but others on this board are and have in the past. Maybe they will speak up?

Married couples sometimes suffer from their staus, but more often, they benefit. The selfsame benefits (and liabilities) should be mandated for gay civil union couples.

Look: I’m straight, but I’m not narrow, and three of my cousins are gay. They’re my family, and I love them and want them to have the same rights that I do being hetero; not more, but not a damn bit less.

They’re all long-term gainfully employed, own their own homes, are pillars of the mainstream community who donate time and money to charities, and are all in long-term monogamous relationships. They’re politically conservative, and are appalled at the gratuitous flaunting that goes on in San Fran. We should be welcoming them into the fold with open arms instead of stigmatizing them for the sake of socon fundraising filthy lucre.

254 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:03:20pm
255 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:03:55pm

re: #231 Pianobuff

You make some good points, but I’d also point out that a very large if not the dominant theme in elections for Dems since 2006 has been running against George Bush, not other R candidates, not R ideology but GWB. If I remember, in early 2006 is when his popularity dropped to the low 30s. I mean it’s a great strategy - so good that it’s still somewhat in effect today. Dem strategists basic theme for any candidate was to run against GWB and little else. So while you say it didn’t all just happen because people in general didn’t like Repubs anymore, I’d argue that much of it did happen because people (the voters that could swing the election) didn’t like Bush anymore - doesn’t make me feel great to say it but that’s what it is.

I’d also say it was a much bigger factor than D thinning of ranks.

You’re right. People hated Bush and anything associated with him. That’s the harsh truth.
But, have to disagree with your last sentence— the Dems did the exact opposite. They did everything they could to appeal to moderates, independents, and people in the centre. They won not by thinning ranks but by expanding them— and they did that by shedding their own extremist image.
They were lucky in that running as “not-Bush” was enough for many, but they also had a candidate that many liked for other reasons.

The GOP has to do the same. Right now they’re crossing their fingers and praying that running as “not-Obama” will be enough in 2010 or 2012. To this end they’re invested in seeing that Obama fails in everything.
But this already means that Dems gearing up for 2010 are mocking them as “the Party of No”.
Barring a perfect shitstorm of events, the GOP has to bring something other than “not-Obama” to the table. So far, they aren’t bringing it.

256 fire at night  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:04:54pm

re: #245 MrPaulRevere

That’s just rich.

Buckeye Texan

Charles Johnson, alas, is no longer a conservative. I used to enjoy Little Green Footballs, but I no longer visit.

He now spends all his time railing against “intelligent design.”

He also has longstanding feuds going against Pam Geller at Atlas Shrugs and Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch. I guess he wants to add Free Republic to his growing list.

/more facepalming

257 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:05:53pm
258 Rolltideroll  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:06:20pm

re: #245 MrPaulRevere

They are comparing themselves to Thomas Jefferson

259 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:06:23pm

re: #212 ArmyWife

Tell me what rights they don’t have that heteros do.

Imagine for a moment that you’re at work, sitting at your desk as usual or going about your daily tasks when you get a phone call. It’s the call that just about everyone dreads. On the other end is a frantic voice telling you that something awful has happened. Your spouse, your closest friend and ally in the world, whom you love more than life itself, has suddenly collapsed on the job or has been injured in a serious accident and is being rushed to the hospital.

Naturally, you drop everything and race out of the office to get to your loved one’s side. Maybe you make it in time to accompany him or her in the ambulance. Finally, you get to the hospital and follow the EMTs in to the ER as they rush the gurney down the hall. Your spouse is rushed into an examination room and while you wait outside you try get some information about what’s happening. Minutes turn to hours as your mind fills itself with all sorts of horrible scenarios. You have ample time to think the unthinkable.

A member of hospital staff tells you that because you’re not next of kin they can’t give you any information. Maybe your loved one is dying, maybe they’re already dead. But you aren’t allowed to be with them, or even to know about it. Why? Because you’re not married. You aren’t “next of kin”, and in the eyes of the law you never could be, because some people who aren’t associated with you in any way whatsoever don’t like the idea of it. You may have been with that person, exclusively, through thick and thin for 20 years, but they just flat don’t give a shit.

You won’t even be allowed to claim custody of the corpse.

But hey, that’s just the way it is, because you know, “family values” and all.

260 philip  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:08:13pm

I like how RimJob grandstands against universal healthcare — which I support 100% as a relative of a cancer victim — and yet collects SSI.

261 opnion  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:08:19pm

re: #254 taxfreekiller

odd, not one, zero of his, students from any of his classes he had have ever said a word the msm would put in print,

odd that…

Obama has a sanitized past. No old girlfriends, his Pali college room mate won’t talk.
It’s like went to law school, married Michelle & the only record of his past is in his momoirs

262 avanti  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:08:33pm

re: #251 opnion

Obama has already lost Card Check, the Congressional budget Office has debunked the economics of his health plan, the Blue Dogs won’t rubber stamp his plan & his job approval numbers are dropping.
Things atre happening sooner than I thought they would & I doubt that Obamas ego can stand it.

IMHO, Obama won on card check in the long run. He promised to support it to get the union vote, but did not expend any effort pushing it, Congress killed it, so he escapes blame, and the unpopular card check part of the bill is gone. BTW, his approval rating were down last week, climbing back up this week with the stock market to 60%.

263 dkorta  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:08:52pm

re: #232 taxfreekiller

of some note observe how quick some are to put the National Guard on the people in this case yet when the deal went down at Kent State
just the 180 degree response,

odd this

“Four dead in O-HI-O”

“Four dead in O-HI-O”

264 Rolltideroll  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:09:02pm

re: #250 Charles
Charles, They are just jazzaphobes. And Jazzholes

265 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:09:21pm

re: #255 iceweasel

“People hated Bush and anything associated with him.” Hated is a tad over the top, don’t you think ?

266 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:09:31pm

re: #253 Salamantis

Married couples sometimes suffer from their staus, but more often, they benefit. The selfsame benefits (and liabilities) should be mandated for gay civil union couples.

Look: I’m straight, but I’m not narrow, and three of my cousins are gay. They’re my family, and I love them and want them to have the same rights that I do being hetero; not more, but not a damn bit less.

They’re all long-term gainfully employed, own their own homes, are pillars of the mainstream community who donate time and money to charities, and are all in long-term monogamous relationships. They’re politically conservative, and are appalled at the gratuitous flaunting that goes on in San Fran. We should be welcoming them into the fold with open arms instead of stigmatizing them for the sake of socon fundraising filthy lucre.

My own issues with certain gay pride parades/fetish events are that these events do a lot to stigmatise the gay community to others. Some people even now don’t know any gay people, and if their only exposure is voyeuristic photos of extreme events, it’s easy for them to demonise gay people— when the reality is the average gay person (male or female) is just like everyone else.

267 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:10:48pm

re: #259 negativ

Brilliant post. Thank you for that. Seriously.

268 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:12:01pm

re: #259 negativ

Imagine for a moment that you’re at work, sitting at your desk as usual or going about your daily tasks when you get a phone call. It’s the call that just about everyone dreads. On the other end is a frantic voice telling you that something awful has happened. Your spouse, your closest friend and ally in the world, whom you love more than life itself, has suddenly collapsed on the job or has been injured in a serious accident and is being rushed to the hospital.

Naturally, you drop everything and race out of the office to get to your loved one’s side. Maybe you make it in time to accompany him or her in the ambulance. Finally, you get to the hospital and follow the EMTs in to the ER as they rush the gurney down the hall. Your spouse is rushed into an examination room and while you wait outside you try get some information about what’s happening. Minutes turn to hours as your mind fills itself with all sorts of horrible scenarios. You have ample time to think the unthinkable.

A member of hospital staff tells you that because you’re not next of kin they can’t give you any information. Maybe your loved one is dying, maybe they’re already dead. But you aren’t allowed to be with them, or even to know about it. Why? Because you’re not married. You aren’t “next of kin”, and in the eyes of the law you never could be, because some people who aren’t associated with you in any way whatsoever don’t like the idea of it. You may have been with that person, exclusively, through thick and thin for 20 years, but they just flat don’t give a shit.

You won’t even be allowed to claim custody of the corpse.

But hey, that’s just the way it is, because you know, “family values” and all.

Or you’re the one who stays at home, or maybe not - but the house is in your spouse’s name. So you have to return home once your beloved dies to clear out your things, because your spouse’s closest legal relative, who never did like you, gets the house you two lived in for decades by default, and told you at the hospital that they want you outta there.

269 opnion  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:12:40pm

re: #262 avanti

IMHO, Obama won on card check in the long run. He promised to support it to get the union vote, but did not expend any effort pushing it, Congress killed it, so he escapes blame, and the unpopular card check part of the bill is gone. BTW, his approval rating were down last week, climbing back up this week with the stock market to 60%.

I am referring to his job approval, has that gone back to 60%.Ya know Avanti, you just made the case for Obama as snake oil salesman.
He supported card check to scam the Union vote, got elected & expended no political capital & you admire that?

270 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:12:51pm

re: #262 avanti

IMHO, Obama won on card check in the long run. He promised to support it to get the union vote, but did not expend any effort pushing it, Congress killed it, so he escapes blame, and the unpopular card check part of the bill is gone. BTW, his approval rating were down last week, climbing back up this week with the stock market to 60%.

BTW, I think Obama has this strategy with a lot of things. DOMA and DADT, for example. He likes to avoid blame and put things in a place where he can either claim he’s been forced to act on it— or forced not to.

271 avanti  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:13:17pm

re: #261 opnion

Obama has a sanitized past. No old girlfriends, his Pali college room mate won’t talk.
It’s like went to law school, married Michelle & the only record of his past is in his momoirs

That’s simply not true, and it would take a major conspiracy to make it so.

friends..

272 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:14:17pm

re: #259 negativ

and everything you said can be cleaned up with a POA. EVERYTHING. I know this because something quite similar happened to a great friend of mine - he brought out the POA, and VIOLA, all information on his partner went through him.

These are tear jerking talking points that can be resolved without marriage.

273 fire at night  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:16:51pm
274 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:17:07pm

re: #272 ArmyWife

and everything you said can be cleaned up with a POA. EVERYTHING. I know this because something quite similar happened to a great friend of mine - he brought out the POA, and VIOLA, all information on his partner went through him.

These are tear jerking talking points that can be resolved without marriage.

They can be resolved for all monogamously committed and in long-term love gay couples by having gay civil unions in all 50 states, with the same rights that straight marriages convey.

275 avanti  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:17:45pm

re: #269 opnion

I am referring to his job approval, has that gone back to 60%.Ya know Avanti, you just made the case for Obama as snake oil salesman.
He supported card check to scam the Union vote, got elected & expended no political capital & you admire that?

Yep, you need to be a good politician to practice successful politics. BTW, yes is approval is back up to 60%.

poll.

276 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:19:29pm

re: #274 Salamantis

We will agree to disagree. I’m not supportive of this, and just won’t ever be.

277 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:20:59pm

re: #272 ArmyWife

and everything you said can be cleaned up with a POA. EVERYTHING. I know this because something quite similar happened to a great friend of mine - he brought out the POA, and VIOLA, all information on his partner went through him.

These are tear jerking talking points that can be resolved without marriage.

I can give a POA to my next door neighbor. Or my cousin or nephew or sister. Or a total stranger. But in most cases, my spouse doesn’t need one. And many people aren’t even aware of what a POA is.

The fact that gay couples can take legal steps to “fix” some of their disadvantages by acting as if they’re not a couple at all doesn’t do squat to “resolve” the issue, which is that they do not, in fact, have the same rights as hetero couples, no matter how you slice it.

278 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:24:31pm

Good Going Jim Robinson. Just what we have to become - HONDURAS WITH HDTV. Thanks, but NO.

-S-

279 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:24:34pm

re: #277 Lynn B.

I can give a POA to my next door neighbor. Or my cousin or nephew or sister. Or a total stranger. But in most cases, my spouse doesn’t need one. And many people aren’t even aware of what a POA is.

The fact that gay couples can take legal steps to “fix” some of their disadvantages by acting as if they’re not a couple at all doesn’t do squat to “resolve” the issue, which is that they do not, in fact, have the same rights as hetero couples, no matter how you slice it.

Exactly, excellent. Very well put.

And also, these steps that ‘fix’ the disadvantage by acting as if they’re not even a couple are denigrating and insulting to the reality of their relationship and their feelings for each other. It’s no kind of solution.

280 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:24:34pm

re: #276 ArmyWife

We will agree to disagree. I’m not supportive of this, and just won’t ever be.

Just why exactly should gay couples have to do so much more - bear all the additional paperwork and legal costs - to get the same rights that straight couples get with a single simple ceremony?

It shouldn’t be a matter of the Bible in the US, any more than it should be a matter of the Quran.

281 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:25:20pm

re: #277 Lynn B.

I didn’t say they did, I said it can be rectified through other measures and doesn’t require “marriage”.

BTW, I have to get a POA drawn up every time my husband is deployed so handle his affairs, so don’t be too comfortable that being married is a panacea for all issues - it isn’t. We have separate credit card accounts and they don’t give a flying fig that I’m married to him.

Anyhow, you have your beliefs, and I respectfully disagree. I am hopeful others who feel the same as you respectfully disagree with me rather than being ugly about it. I am a Pollyanna type, though, so I’ll probably be disappointed.

282 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:25:53pm

re: #280 Salamantis

I never quoted the bible - I’m faithful, but not very religious.

283 Rolltideroll  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:25:55pm

According to one of the Freeper posters, Jihad Watch is a site of the “utmost integrity”. I never knew that. Why are you guys enabling terrorism?

284 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:26:09pm

re: #276 ArmyWife

We will agree to disagree. I’m not supportive of this, and just won’t ever be.

Why? What possible reason is there to deny two adults who love each other all the benefits of hetero unions— especially when they love each other as much, as deeply, as monogamously, as the most ideal hetero unions?

285 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:27:39pm
286 Pianobuff  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:28:31pm

re: #255 iceweasel

You’re right. People hated Bush and anything associated with him. That’s the harsh truth.
But, have to disagree with your last sentence— the Dems did the exact opposite. They did everything they could to appeal to moderates, independents, and people in the centre. They won not by thinning ranks but by expanding them— and they did that by shedding their own extremist image.
They were lucky in that running as “not-Bush” was enough for many, but they also had a candidate that many liked for other reasons.

The GOP has to do the same. Right now they’re crossing their fingers and praying that running as “not-Obama” will be enough in 2010 or 2012. To this end they’re invested in seeing that Obama fails in everything.
But this already means that Dems gearing up for 2010 are mocking them as “the Party of No”.
Barring a perfect shitstorm of events, the GOP has to bring something other than “not-Obama” to the table. So far, they aren’t bringing it.

I could have worded the “thinning” phrase better. I meant keeping the extremists out of the forefront - which as you point out helped the image particularly for those that may have decided to register D.

No doubt the GOP needs to be better organized to do better in upcoming elections.

I wonder what kind of conversation folks will be having here in a year or two. Anecdotally (at work, in my building, etc.), I’m hearing more and more Obama voters (not the kool-aid types, the “let’s-give-this-guy-a-chance” types) expressing remorse. One put it to me this way - “You know what the next R presidential candidate ought to say? Everything that Obama did, I’m going to undo.”

Hope we’re still around to discuss that….

287 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:29:23pm

re: #281 ArmyWife

I didn’t say they did, I said it can be rectified through other measures and doesn’t require “marriage”.

BTW, I have to get a POA drawn up every time my husband is deployed so handle his affairs, so don’t be too comfortable that being married is a panacea for all issues - it isn’t. We have separate credit card accounts and they don’t give a flying fig that I’m married to him.

Anyhow, you have your beliefs, and I respectfully disagree. I am hopeful others who feel the same as you respectfully disagree with me rather than being ugly about it. I am a Pollyanna type, though, so I’ll probably be disappointed.

If the shoe was on the other foot, whether it was that instead of the way that it is, that gays got such automatic considerations that straight couples didn’t, or if you and your partner were gay rather than straight and had to face the hassles yourselves because of the way you were naturally born rather than NOT having to deal with them because of the way you were naturally born, I think you’d feel differently.

288 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:29:33pm

re: #284 iceweasel

No one has the unfettered right to marry whomever they wish, hetero or not.

289 rightymouse  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:29:40pm

re: #259 negativ

Until this all gets sorted out, there’s such a thing as a power of attorney, including medical power of attorney.

What if a heterosexual has NO relatives or next of kin nearby and something like that happened? It would be wise for them to tap a close friend to help out in an emergency.

290 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:30:20pm

re: #273 fire at night

I don’t think they know who gets more page hits or has higher traffic ranking.

I don’t recommend relying on Alexa as an authority on “traffic rankings.” It’s worthless as a measure of general Internet usage. Their stats only come from people who have installed the Alexa toolbar — a very tiny percentage of web users. And many anti-virus tools identify the Alexa toolbar as “spyware,” so the percentage who install it is even tinier.

291 Render  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:30:29pm

re: #289 rightymouse

Thank you.

LAST
IN
LINE,
R

292 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:30:29pm

re: #288 ArmyWife

No one has the unfettered right to marry whomever they wish, hetero or not.

Distraction. You haven’t explained why you think no same sex couples have the right, ever.

293 SpaceJesus  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:30:48pm

hahahahahaha

294 Pianobuff  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:31:32pm

re: #275 avanti

Yep, you need to be a good politician to practice successful politics. BTW, yes is approval is back up to 60%.

poll.

Try here.

Rasmussen has him at 51, Gallup at 60, and the others in between for an realclear average of 56.2

295 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:32:25pm

re: #287 Salamantis

Maybe - I have the token gay friend (his words, not mine) and he’s very much against gay marriage or anything close to it. He finds the penguin story revolting, and he doesn’t feel gay people should have children as his belief is a mother and father play important roles. So, really, if I was gay, I may or may not feel differently. As a funny (to me) aside, his partner (who is a divorce attorney) disagrees - his reasoning is the uptick in the inevitable divorces. Such the capitalist! I think I’ve shared that before, too.

296 opnion  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:32:54pm

re: #271 avanti

That’s simply not true, and it would take a major conspiracy to make it so.

friends..

His old college roommate will not disuss his trip to Pakistan with Obama.

297 avanti  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:33:36pm

re: #284 iceweasel

Why? What possible reason is there to deny two adults who love each other all the benefits of hetero unions— especially when they love each other as much, as deeply, as monogamously, as the most ideal hetero unions?

I’m a agnostic, and don’t have a faith based opinion on the issue. I support civil unions, but not gay marriage. I tend to think that marriage is a traditional, religious term that is defined by the union between a man and a woman. I guess I object simply on redefining a traditional word. It’s not like we are deciding really good margarine can be called butter.

298 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:33:42pm

re: #292 iceweasel

Because it goes against what I believe morally. I have no issues with explaining that at all.

299 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:34:13pm

re: #232 taxfreekiller

of some note observe how quick some are to put the National Guard on the people in this case yet when the deal went down at Kent State
just the 180 degree response,

odd this

I didn’t especially have a problem with the National Guard at Kent State. An unarmed mob can still be lethally dangerous and (contrary to much media cult propaganda) lethal force CAN be lawful in suppressing it. The shooting itself was too spontaneous and ill-coordinated to have any worthwhile effect though. A couple of the pro-VC insurrectionists were hit but most of the victims were just bystanders.

Take a look at the Free Republic string. Some of the nuts are unambiguously advocating an armed insurrection against the lawful and constitutional authorities. Now, it would take an army to break into the White House or the Capitol but a couple of thousand insurrectionists with small arms could easily overwhelm the civil police elsewhere and take control of a large part of the city. Where would be then? What would Zero or any official with any pretense of responsibility do?
This lurid scenario can’t happen in real life because these nuts can’t get together a dozen armed insurrectionists let alone thousands, but that is what they are advocating.

300 opnion  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:34:28pm

re: #275 avanti

Yep, you need to be a good politician to practice successful politics. BTW, yes is approval is back up to 60%.

poll.

Successful politics, no ststesmanship, but successful politics

301 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:37:04pm
302 debutaunt  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:37:11pm

re: #246 avanti

They are living in a bubble, Obama’s approval is at 60%, not in the 20’s so they would not even represent the will of the citizens and the military would be the last of their worries. The worst scenario is that they actually got a few 1000 to show up, and the MSN covered it as a conservative revolt when in fact, it’s a tiny fringe.

60% of what?

303 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:37:54pm
304 pingjockey  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:38:38pm

re: #302 debutaunt

60% of gullible idiots.

305 avanti  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:38:49pm

re: #294 Pianobuff

Try here.

Rasmussen has him at 51, Gallup at 60, and the others in between for an realclear average of 56.2

Rasmussen does not weigh by party ID and is always way low when they use equal GOP/Dems in the poll, and the GOP is a smaller base. The 56% poll of polls is much closer, even with the Rasmussen outer factor.

306 rightymouse  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:38:58pm

re: #268 Salamantis

Or you’re the one who stays at home, or maybe not - but the house is in your spouse’s name. So you have to return home once your beloved dies to clear out your things, because your spouse’s closest legal relative, who never did like you, gets the house you two lived in for decades by default, and told you at the hospital that they want you outta there.

Not sure I understand this one.

POA’s and wills are common between spouses, partners, other family members, friends, etc. - or am I nuts?

Ohio is a dower state so even though the home is in MY name, that does not nullify his right of inheritance as my spouse. I’m sure that’s not uncommon.

Two people of the same sex can buy a home together and the deed can be in both names.

What am I missing?

307 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:39:26pm

re: #298 ArmyWife

Because it goes against what I believe morally. I have no issues with explaining that at all.

You don’t approve of gay civil unions? Fine. Then don’t enter one. But please don’t demand that your personal morality be coercively imposed upon unwilling others via the legal machinery of the state.

In constitutional democratic republics, an array of choices have to be available to us, in order for choices between them to mean anything. And we will make choices of which others will not approve, and others will make choices of which we do not approve; that’s the nature of liberty.

Only in theocracies and totalitarianisms are all of our choices either mandated or forbidden. The price of freedom is tolerance for the rights of those who exercise their freedoms differently than we do to make the choices that they prefer.

308 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:39:30pm

re: #246 avanti

They are living in a bubble, Obama’s approval is at 60%, not in the 20’s so they would not even represent the will of the citizens and the military would be the last of their worries. The worst scenario is that they actually got a few 1000 to show up, and the MSN covered it as a conservative revolt when in fact, it’s a tiny fringe.

Yep, and any shooting by the revolting mob would pretty well wrap up the case for gun control.

309 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:39:38pm

re: #273 fire at night

I don’t think they know who gets more page hits or has higher traffic ranking.

Charles is completely right about Alexa as a measure of traffic. The Alexa rankings are only from people who bothered to install the Alexa toolbar— a very small percentage of all web users. Plus people who bother to install it are already going to be atypical, not merely because they’re a small percentage of all people using the internet, but because they have to care enough about rating traffic to websites to bother to install it. It’s automatically a very skewed sample. — and that’s before the installation issues Charles mentioned that I hadn’t known about (anti-virus programs blocking it, etc)

I know for a fact that Alexa traffic rankings are skewed and inaccurate and don’t reflect actual traffic.

310 Pianobuff  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:41:26pm

re: #305 avanti

Rasmussen does not weigh by party ID and is always way low when they use equal GOP/Dems in the poll, and the GOP is a smaller base. The 56% poll of polls is much closer, even with the Rasmussen outer factor.

Dude - that’s why I gave you an average and showed you the two outliers. What are you saying?

FYI: Rasmussen is also a likely voter sample, IIRC.

311 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:42:18pm

re: #306 rightymouse

Not sure I understand this one.

POA’s and wills are common between spouses, partners, other family members, friends, etc. - or am I nuts?

Ohio is a dower state so even though the home is in MY name, that does not nullify his right of inheritance as my spouse. I’m sure that’s not uncommon.

Two people of the same sex can buy a home together and the deed can be in both names.

What am I missing?

The fact that some couples entering into civil unions may have to go to the additional trouble and expense of drawing up such inheritances, while married couples do not. And that in some states, civil unions aren’t even available, so the gratuitous, discriminatory and unnecessary hassle is unavoidable.

312 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:43:51pm

re: #307 Salamantis

You don’t approve of gay civil unions? Fine. Then don’t enter one. But please don’t demand that your personal morality be coercively imposed upon unwilling others via the legal machinery of the state. /blockquote>

Oh please. Morality is forced on us at every turn - it’s NOT ok to shoot other people in cold blood, even if you really, really want too. It’s not ok to marry your brother or your mother, even if you are hopelessly in love.

313 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:45:00pm

re: #312 ArmyWife

Oh please. Morality is forced on us at every turn - it’s NOT ok to shoot other people in cold blood, even if you really, really want too. It’s not ok to marry your brother or your mother, even if you are hopelessly in love.

So now you’re equating gay civil unions to incest and homicide?

Sheesh!

314 philip  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:45:43pm

I like how right-wingers say they are for maximizing individual liberties but then are against gay marriage. I believe if you are not for gay marriage you are not truly for maximizing individual freedoms.

315 avanti  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:47:03pm

re: #310 Pianobuff

Dude - that’s why I gave you an average and showed you the two outliers. What are you saying?

FYI: Rasmussen is also a likely voter sample, IIRC.

And why I agreed your poll of polls was a better choice.

316 pingjockey  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:47:53pm

re: #314 philip

Marriage is up to the church. Civil unions are up to the state. You can’t legislate what churches have to do.

317 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:48:01pm

“It’s RESTORATION, not revolution! by Jim Robinson” They have a new talking point now…This Robinson character sounds unbalanced from what I’ve read of his history.

318 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:49:00pm

I am unalterably opposed to all varieties of bigotry-based discrimination, be they based upon bigotries against races, sexes, religions, or sexual orientations.

319 scrubjay  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:49:28pm

Why do we need a revolution? What’s wrong with getting more votes than the other guy?

320 avanti  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:49:54pm

Here’s a chance for climate change skeptics to make some real money.

Nate Silver challenge.

321 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:50:25pm

re: #316 pingjockey

Marriage is up to the church. Civil unions are up to the state. You can’t legislate what churches have to do.

True. But civil unions should convey the selfsame spousal rights and privileges that civil marriages do. Church weddings add nothing to that list of legal benefits.

322 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:50:41pm

re: #272 ArmyWife

and everything you said can be cleaned up with a POA. EVERYTHING. I know this because something quite similar happened to a great friend of mine - he brought out the POA, and VIOLA, all information on his partner went through him.

These are tear jerking talking points that can be resolved without marriage.

If your contention is that gay couples have exactly the same opportunities afforded to them that straight couples have - a concept that you seem to have no problem with - then logically nothing is lost to you by “allowing” gays to be considered “married”. Unless I have misunderstood you, your main concern is the use of the word “marriage”, and not even what the word itself means. Are you really drawing a line in the sand and defending to the bitter end a mere word? Surely there’s more to it than that in your mind.

If you really think gay couples already enjoy every benefit enjoyed by a straight married couple, and you aren’t railing against the specific results of that circumstance, then why do you care whether or not they can be called “married”?

I can’t begin to think of a way by which allowing two men or two women to become legally married has any bearing whatsoever on the lives of married straight couples. I keep waiting for someone to elucidate such a reason but it hasn’t happened yet. To co-opt Thomas Jefferson, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

I really do think it boils down to nothing more substantial than the fact that gay marriage opponents are personally squicked out by the idea, and at its core the position is not significantly different from that held by the people who used to rail venomously against interracial marriage.

323 Pianobuff  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:51:12pm

re: #317 MrPaulRevere

“It’s RESTORATION, not revolution! by Jim Robinson” They have a new talking point now…This Robinson character sounds unbalanced from what I’ve read of his history.

Wasn’t that a big furniture period?

Maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll focus on build gate-legged tables, day beds, and high-backed dressers.

324 ArmyWife  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:51:18pm

re: #313 Salamantis

Again, please. They were examples of morality being forced on us as a matter of course. Feel free to paint this as extremely as you wish. I am opposed to gay marriage, plan and simple, but I’m not a bigot as you really would like me to be right now. Have a great day, friend.

325 rightymouse  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:52:13pm

re: #311 Salamantis

The fact that some couples entering into civil unions may have to go to the additional trouble and expense of drawing up such inheritances, while married couples do not. And that in some states, civil unions aren’t even available, so the gratuitous, discriminatory and unnecessary hassle is unavoidable.

But heterosexual couples who are unmarried have to (should) cover themselves/each other the same way. And married couples still have to make sure that all is well legally when a crisis or death occurs.

In Ohio, gay unions are unavailable, but my friend and his partner are wise enough to have made sure they covered their bases. And my husband and I did the same thing even though we’re married and Ohio is a dower state. We all did so because it’s a prudent thing to do, regardless of the circumstances.

326 philip  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:52:22pm

re: #316 pingjockey

Marriage is up to the church. Civil unions are up to the state. You can’t legislate what churches have to do.

Irrelevant to my point. I guess what I’m saying is, it’s hypocrisy to claim you are for maximizing individual rights if you are not for gay marriage. IMHO. Not to continue getting off the subject. :D

327 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:52:34pm

re: #312 ArmyWife

Oh please. Morality is forced on us at every turn - it’s NOT ok to shoot other people in cold blood, even if you really, really want too. It’s not ok to marry your brother or your mother, even if you are hopelessly in love.

You really want to compare gay marriage to murder? Really?

It’s not ok to marry your brother or your mother because very serious genetic problems can result, which is something human beings have understood long before they knew genes existed.

328 pingjockey  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:55:11pm

re: #321 Salamantis
Oh, I quite agree. It is up to the voters of each state. If the gay community would pursue that avenue they have my support. But, when they pull shit like the Folsome St. Fair and all the other in your face crap, my support goes right out the window. I don’t care what 2 adults do in their own house, don’t throw it in my face.

329 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:55:31pm

re: #324 ArmyWife

Again, please. They were examples of morality being forced on us as a matter of course. Feel free to paint this as extremely as you wish. I am opposed to gay marriage, plan and simple, but I’m not a bigot as you really would like me to be right now. Have a great day, friend.

Saying that you’re not homophobic yet op[pose gay civil unions is like saying that you are not a racist, but oppose interracial marriages. And not even marriages, but interracial civil unions conveying the same spousal rights. My gay cousins would be quite happy with calling them civil unions, and reserving the title of marriage for heterosexual unions, as long as they conferred the selfsame legal rights.

330 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:56:12pm

re: #272 ArmyWife

and everything you said can be cleaned up with a POA. EVERYTHING. I know this because something quite similar happened to a great friend of mine - he brought out the POA, and VIOLA, all information on his partner went through him.

And by the way, if a society deems it uncompromisingly necessary that a bureaucratic process has to be followed and approved by the government before two individuals are allowed to fulfill their moral agreements to each other, would you say that is a just society? A moral society?

331 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:57:10pm

re: #293 SpaceJesus

Downding of SJ, just because.

332 pingjockey  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:58:18pm

re: #326 philip
S’alright. Marriage to me is the province of the church, civil unions, or marriage if you prefer is the states. That’s all I’m saying. Damn semantics I guess. IMO it’s the word ‘marriage’ that throws people.

333 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:58:36pm

re: #325 rightymouse

But heterosexual couples who are unmarried have to (should) cover themselves/each other the same way. And married couples still have to make sure that all is well legally when a crisis or death occurs.

In Ohio, gay unions are unavailable, but my friend and his partner are wise enough to have made sure they covered their bases. And my husband and I did the same thing even though we’re married and Ohio is a dower state. We all did so because it’s a prudent thing to do, regardless of the circumstances.

But it is not legally NECESSARY to do so in cases of marriage like it is in the case of gay monogamous relationships who are willing to exchange commitment vows. And there’s the rub. It’s legally discriminatory, on the basis of sexual orientation.

334 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:58:42pm

re: #316 pingjockey

Marriage is up to the church. Civil unions are up to the state. You can’t legislate what churches have to do.

You know, I could agree with that if we were consistent about it, i.e., if we termed religiously consecrated unions “marriage” and secularly performed unions “civil unions.” But we don’t. We call a union performed by a justice of the peace with no religious sanction whatsoever a “marriage.” So unless and until we stop doing that, I just don’t see any justification for making a distinction based on sexual orientation.

335 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:59:11pm
336 Alan Furman  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:02:42pm

re: #314 philip

I like how right-wingers say they are for maximizing individual liberties but then are against gay marriage. I believe if you are not for gay marriage you are not truly for maximizing individual freedoms.

The Left is anti-choice on trade and property ownership. The Right is anti-choice on erotica, sexual relations, and chemical ingestion. The Center is anti-choice on half of each.

“Maximizing individual liberty” means libertarianism, which does not exist anywhere on the left-right axis. So long as you accept — even implicitly — the premise that political ideology is a one-dimensional space, you will be unable so much as to express a challenge to the status quo.

337 pingjockey  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:03:01pm

going up to open thread

338 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:03:54pm

re: #328 pingjockey

Oh, I quite agree. It is up to the voters of each state. If the gay community would pursue that avenue they have my support. But, when they pull shit like the Folsome St. Fair and all the other in your face crap, my support goes right out the window. I don’t care what 2 adults do in their own house, don’t throw it in my face.

Most homosexuals are not only not like that, but share your antipathy to those people, because they cause precisely the overgeneralized reaction against all homosexuals that you describe.

The vast majority of homosexuals should not have to suffer for what a few fringers do, any more than the vast majority of antiabortionists should have to endure state surveillance because of the actions of a few Army of God-ers.

339 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:03:55pm

re: #335 buzzsawmonkey

I don’t know if people in ancient times understood genetic problems long before they knew genes existed, as you claim. I do, however, know that the reason such unions as you mention above were expressly forbidden in the Torah is because otherwise people would have felt free to engage in them; the prohibitions exist precisely because morality is a limitation externally imposed upon otherwise natural urges.

Which begs the question … what was the reason that those particular natural urges required suppression in the first place?

340 BLBfootballs  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:05:48pm

The problem is that these kinds of sentiments may seep more and more into the mainstream as the Congress and political class fall more and more out of touch with reality.

341 Egregious Philbin  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:06:11pm

Jim Robinson is a conman a grifter and a joke. FR has become the dumping ground for all the wingnuts and religious zealots that the rest of the party wants nothing to do with.

Its a dying site, and its owner is nuttier than a pecan orchard at harvest.

342 rightymouse  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:06:24pm

re: #333 Salamantis

But it is not legally NECESSARY to do so in cases of marriage like it is in the case of gay monogamous relationships who are willing to exchange commitment vows. And there’s the rub. It’s legally discriminatory, on the basis of sexual orientation.

If my husband or I died without a will, the rub is that one of us and the kids (for sure) would be screwed. The same would be true of homosexual partners.

I ‘think’ what you’re talking about is the issue of benefits like social security or health insurance via a partner?

343 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:07:42pm

OT: Avanti, this is present for you:

Classic Car Show 7/19/09

344 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:08:04pm

re: #338 Salamantis

Most homosexuals are not only not like that, but share your antipathy to those people, because they cause precisely the overgeneralized reaction against all homosexuals that you describe.

The vast majority of homosexuals should not have to suffer for what a few fringers do, any more than the vast majority of antiabortionists should have to endure state surveillance because of the actions of a few Army of God-ers.

Quite right. With a few clicks of your mouse, you could find dozens of websites displaying heterosexual behavior just as offensive and deviant as the FSF. But for some reason that’s never held up as a reason for antipathy against heterosexuality.

There’s a high degree of logical inconsistency in this prejudice … in all prejudices, actually.

345 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:09:05pm
346 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:10:25pm

re: #342 rightymouse

If my husband or I died without a will, the rub is that one of us and the kids (for sure) would be screwed. The same would be true of homosexual partners.

I ‘think’ what you’re talking about is the issue of benefits like social security or health insurance via a partner?

You mean that the surviving spouse would not automatically inherit your property?

But yes, spousal inheritance is only one of several areas concerned; spousal medical decision rights, spousal employee benefits, spousal health benefits, and tax equity are some others.

347 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:13:01pm

re: #342 rightymouse

If my husband or I died without a will, the rub is that one of us and the kids (for sure) would be screwed. The same would be true of homosexual partners.

Actually, that’s not true. Ohio, like most (if not all) states, has an intestacy statute that assures that all of the assets are distributed to the spouse and children (the shares depend upon the circumstances). Not true for same sex partners.

348 rightymouse  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:18:17pm

re: #346 Salamantis

You mean that the surviving spouse would not automatically inherit your property?

But yes, spousal inheritance is only one of several areas concerned; spousal medical decision rights, spousal employee benefits, spousal health benefits, and tax equity are some others.

As for automatic inheritance of property, I only know about Ohio and we still covered our butts. If I’m not mistaken, there are tax issues if one dies intestate. The best thing to do is check your state law.

Medical decisions can be conferred via medial Power of Attorney. Even married couples do this.

The rest of your post speaks to what I believe to be the heart of the issue not so easily resolved which are the spousal medical benefits and social security (which you didn’t mention specifically).

As far as tax issues - well we get clobbered by being married. So be careful for what you wish on that one. lol!

349 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:19:13pm

re: #345 buzzsawmonkey

Raises the question, not “begs.” “Begs the question” is the name of a logical fallacy which you really don’t want to get into in a discussion like this.

The reason given Biblically is that G-d forbade them; end of story. If you don’t believe in G-d, then I guess you’re on your own.

I don’t really care what the “reason” was, myself; my point is merely that some ancient societies did in fact engage in all manner of sexual couplings which are Biblically forbidden, and that these societies flourished for hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of years.

No, I did mean “begs,” as my point was that you were assuming your conclusion in your premise.

Right. If your answer to the question is “because G-d says so,” the discussion has nowhere to go. You were purporting to contradict my point that incest was prohibited (in almost every civilization on earth) because people long ago realized that children born of such unions sooner or later became a burden on and ultimately a dead end in the community. Saying that the reason they were forbidden was because otherwise people would engage in them assumes that a problem results from such engagement.

350 rightymouse  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:20:38pm

re: #347 Lynn B.

Actually, that’s not true. Ohio, like most (if not all) states, has an intestacy statute that assures that all of the assets are distributed to the spouse and children (the shares depend upon the circumstances). Not true for same sex partners.


Even though Ohio is a dower state, we still made sure the bases were covered. Otherwise it could be a mess. And if I’m not mistaken there are also tax consequences to consider. No matter. I don’t have to worry about it.

351 jvic  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:21:07pm

re: #274 Salamantis

They can be resolved for all monogamously committed and in long-term love gay couples by having gay civil unions in all 50 states, with the same rights that straight marriages convey.

I agree with the above as a question of policy.

Nevertheless, ArmyWife, you have my respect for how you’ve behaved in this thread. My compliments.

352 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:23:25pm

re: #348 rightymouse

As for automatic inheritance of property, I only know about Ohio and we still covered our butts. If I’m not mistaken, there are tax issues if one dies intestate. The best thing to do is check your state law.

Medical decisions can be conferred via medial Power of Attorney. Even married couples do this.

The rest of your post speaks to what I believe to be the heart of the issue not so easily resolved which are the spousal medical benefits and social security (which you didn’t mention specifically).

As far as tax issues - well we get clobbered by being married. So be careful for what you wish on that one. lol!

There are no tax issues that result from intestacy. Not estate tax issues, not inheritance tax issues and not income tax issues. Federal estates that pass to a spouse are not taxable, whether by intestacy or will. Federal estates that pass to a non-spouse (other than a charity) are taxable above the exemption amount (currently $3.5 million). The same is true for inheritance taxes imposed by most states. And no POA or other fancy footwork will change that.

353 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:27:02pm

re: #352 Lynn B.

There are no tax issues that result from intestacy. Not estate tax issues, not inheritance tax issues and not income tax issues. Federal estates that pass to a spouse are not taxable, whether by intestacy or will. Federal estates that pass to a non-spouse (other than a charity) are taxable above the exemption amount (currently $3.5 million). The same is true for inheritance taxes imposed by most states. And no POA or other fancy footwork will change that.

And, BTW, the DOMA relieves same sex spouses (in states that recognize them as such) of this benefit with respect to the Federal Estate Tax, which was one of its express purposes.

354 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:27:53pm

re: #349 Lynn B.

No, I did mean “begs,” as my point was that you were assuming your conclusion in your premise.

Right. If your answer to the question is “because G-d says so,” the discussion has nowhere to go. You were purporting to contradict my point that incest was prohibited (in almost every civilization on earth) because people long ago realized that children born of such unions sooner or later became a burden on and ultimately a dead end in the community. Saying that the reason they were forbidden was because otherwise people would engage in them assumes that a problem results from such engagement.

Lynn— btw, just coming back to this thread, but major kudos and updings to you not only for your points on this but for making the point about the actual meaning of ‘beg the question’— assuming the conclusion in one’s premise. I’m a bit pedantic about this and it just delights me to see it used properly.

Your posts on this issue are a joy anyway. Thank you!

355 rightymouse  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:32:12pm

re: #352 Lynn B.

The POA is for health and other issues. At no time did I say that it would cover intestacy.

We covered our bases here in Ohio through our wills. The laws and tax rates vary from state to state.

356 rightymouse  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:33:16pm

Now it’s off to make a chicken curry for dinner.

357 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:36:07pm

re: #355 rightymouse

The POA is for health and other issues. At no time did I say that it would cover intestacy.

We covered our bases here in Ohio through our wills. The laws and tax rates vary from state to state.

Sorry. I was unclear. You said:

If I’m not mistaken, there are tax issues if one dies intestate.

I’m not aware of any state in which this is true.

358 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:36:34pm

re: #356 rightymouse

Now it’s off to make a chicken curry for dinner.

Yum!

359 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:37:58pm
360 Salamantis  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:39:34pm

re: #348 rightymouse

As for automatic inheritance of property, I only know about Ohio and we still covered our butts. If I’m not mistaken, there are tax issues if one dies intestate. The best thing to do is check your state law.

Medical decisions can be conferred via medial Power of Attorney. Even married couples do this.

The rest of your post speaks to what I believe to be the heart of the issue not so easily resolved which are the spousal medical benefits and social security (which you didn’t mention specifically).

As far as tax issues - well we get clobbered by being married. So be careful for what you wish on that one. lol!

The point is that in order to receive all of these spousal rights and privileges, they have to do things that married couples don’t have to, and as long as that imbalance perdures in any legal particular, discrimination remains.

361 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:41:45pm

re: #359 buzzsawmonkey

Sibling marriage was common in ancient Egypt

I’m curious as to your purported authority on their being forbidden “in almost every civilization on earth.”

I’m curious as to your authority on sibling marriage being ‘common in ancient Egypt’- or Rome for that matter— as opposed to being a practice for the pharoahs or other separate classes.

362 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:48:24pm

Damn. Killed this thread dead!

363 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:51:33pm
364 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:55:22pm

re: #359 buzzsawmonkey

Yes, I do contradict that claim. Sibling marriage was common in ancient Egypt and, if memory serves, ancient Rome, among other highly successful and long-lived societies. Incestuous unions were clearly common enough in Canaanite society to make it necessary for them to be forbidden. It’s been too long since I read anything about pre-Columbian civilizations to recall if they were common there, too—but it would not surprise me.

The morality which we know from the Bible was radical precisely because it forbade such marriages. I’m curious as to your purported authority on their being forbidden “in almost every civilization on earth.”

Actually, it’s my understanding that both Rome and Egypt, in the fairly distant past, elected to ban it as well. Why would that be? As for the Canaanites … where are they now? I’m not aware of any society in which it hasn’t been banned for a dozen centuries or more, but as there may be a few I don’t know about, I was careful to say “almost.”

Of course the Torah was ahead of the curve. Did I ever say it wasn’t? ;-)

365 Lynn B.  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:56:48pm

re: #362 iceweasel

Damn. Killed this thread dead!

It ain’t dead ‘till it’s dead.

/Yogi B.

366 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:58:28pm

re: #363 buzzsawmonkey

Something being engaged in by the ruling classes isn’t “common” enough

You proved Lynn B’s point. Again. :)

367 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:00:20pm
368 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:01:18pm

In regards to Jim Robinson and FR, I got three questions:

1. When is the last time you heard somebody say the phrase, “Love it or leave it!”?

2. Has anybody said this phrase to Robinson?

3. What was his response?

369 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:03:28pm

re: #368 ShanghaiEd

In regards to Jim Robinson and FR, I got three questions:

1. When is the last time you heard somebody say the phrase, “Love it or leave it!”?

It’s said often. Sadly.

370 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:06:42pm

I’d also like to remind the folks at FR of one fact:

Criticizing our president in a time of war is a traitorous act. It only serves to embolden our enemies. I have this on good authority.

/

371 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:08:10pm

re: #370 ShanghaiEd

I’d also like to remind the folks at FR of one fact:

Criticizing our president in a time of war is a traitorous act. It only serves to embolden our enemies. I have this on good authority.

/

Why do you hate America, Ed? ////////////////

:)

372 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:11:21pm

re: #369 iceweasel

It’s said often. Sadly.

Hi, Ice!

Really? I ask because I haven’t heard it said since January of this year. Or, come to think of it, since November of last year. I’m just wondering if it’s coincidence. :)

373 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:15:27pm

re: #371 iceweasel

Why do you hate America, Ed? ////////////////

:)

Ice, you know I don’t hate America. It’s all an act. I just can’t resist that fat check from Soros that rolls in every month…

/

374 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:25:58pm

re: #373 ShanghaiEd

Ice, you know I don’t hate America. It’s all an act. I just can’t resist that fat check from Soros that rolls in every month…

/

When I’m not smoking pot, hating America, and participating in gay marriages, I occasionally cash a Soros check.

But I’m feckless, so I often forget.

//

375 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:28:00pm

And let me just say this:

We are one nation, under God, indivisible. If you don’t believe me, just read the Constitution.

It’s time for everybody who calls themself an American to straighten up, show some unity, respect our president, and quit running down this wonderful country of ours. And furthermore…

(Tap Tap…Hello? Is this thing on?)


/

376 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:31:36pm

re: #375 ShanghaiEd

And let me just say this:

We are one nation, under God, indivisible. If you don’t believe me, just read the Constitution.

It’s time for everybody who calls themself an American to straighten up, show some unity, respect our president, and quit running down this wonderful country of ours. And furthermore…

(Tap Tap…Hello? Is this thing on?)

/

HA!

I’d like to propose a Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade. We’ll know the infiltrators because of their refusal to sign, or by their insistence on signing.

377 notamolly  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:32:19pm

re: #370 ShanghaiEd

I’d also like to remind the folks at FR of one fact:

Criticizing our president in a time of war is a traitorous act. It only serves to embolden our enemies. I have this on good authority.

/

I am sure the DHS and FBI are having a field day monitoring FR. And these are NOT people you want to play with. FR would not be a good place to be posting about now.

378 JarHeadLifer  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:32:53pm

I’m beginning to hope that Palin actually does get the nomination. She’ll be beaten so badly by Obama that maybe then the party can shed itself of the worshipers of stupid and get on with the business of creating solutions to America’s problems. FR’s death spiral (with the coup de grace by it’s founder) the last year or so (perhaps longer) is a testament to how painfully out of touch people who claim to be the “base” of the party really are.

379 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:35:44pm

re: #374 iceweasel

When I’m not smoking pot, hating America, and participating in gay marriages, I occasionally cash a Soros check.

But I’m feckless, so I often forget.

//

Yeah, but that’s the thing…if you forget to cash a Soros check, he just doubles the next one. Guy’s such a putz.

/

380 iceweasel  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 3:19:38pm

re: #379 ShanghaiEd

Yeah, but that’s the thing…if you forget to cash a Soros check, he just doubles the next one. Guy’s such a putz.

/

Sounds like a Commie.

381 capitalist piglet  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 5:16:46pm

re: #21 Killgore Trout

This is not going to end well.

It’ll be fine. Jim Robinson will show up in D.C. with a P.A., Ann Coulter, five-hundred folding chairs, and six asses in them.

I wouldn’t worry about it. I just laugh at them.

382 Gmac  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 5:51:17pm

The echo chamber feeds upon itself when there is no voice of sanity to point out the obvious.

383 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 7:03:54pm

re: #381 capitalist piglet

It’ll be fine. Jim Robinson will show up in D.C. with a P.A., Ann Coulter, five-hundred folding chairs, and six asses in them.

I wouldn’t worry about it. I just laugh at them.

cp, thanks for that image! Best laugh I’ve had all day.

And, I think (hope) you’re absolutely correct.

384 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 8:29:36pm

And they’ll be just SHOCKED and OUTRAGED that they end up on a DHS assessment.

385 kywrite  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:00:40pm

re: #140 sattv4u2

You’ll have to have all your pants alerted!

Wait — what?

386 crosspatch  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:59:44pm

The biggest problem in our federal government is when the states legislatures lost their voice through the early 20th century change to the Constitution that made Senators directly elected. I believe there could be a mechanism to fix that without any changes to the Constitution.

Have the Senators directly elected but have them nominated by the state legislature. So when one of a state’s Senate seats comes up for election, the legislature would nominate at least two candidates, only one being of the majority party of the legislature, and the people select which one is elected.

But the Senator is ultimately answerable to BOTH the Legislature AND the people because if he supports things like unfunded mandates and other issues that would potentially bankrupt the state or go against the state’s interests, the legislature would not renominate the Senator when that seat comes up for election again.

It would probably require changes to state constitutions but I believe it would be ok at the federal level.

387 sagehen  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:27:45am

re: #339 Lynn B.


I’m about 12 hours late to the thread, so I don’t know if anyone’s still reading, but…

the anthropology reason for incest taboos being common to so many cultures is that marriage isn’t just about the 2 people and their offspring — it’s about tying a family to another family. All those new in-laws have culturally specific obligations to each other, there’s a massive increase in the number of dependency/assistance relationships between members of the society, thus creating more stability in the tribe/ town/ nation.

That’s why feudal landowners arranged for their kids to marry into the family next door, titled nobility want their kids to marry into families they’d like to be closer to, and Pharoahs married their sisters so there wouldn’t be any new people having in-law claims.

388 Roger  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 4:58:24pm

Watch the truckers. Monitor what they are thinking; their mood. Find out if a percentage of them get on board with this [of course the gas/diesel price isn’t approaching 5$/gallon right now bur by fall it could be] because if they do, this won’t be internet bs or something to laugh about. It would get very real in a hurry.


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: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

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 Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Graduation and Par-Tay!
William Lewis
13 hours, 3 minutes ago
Views: 144 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 9
Tweets: 0 •
Sen. Bill Cassidy: Louisiana’s Maternal Mortality Rate Is Only Bad if You Include Black Women Firstly, yes, Black women are four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than their white counterparts in Louisiana (three times more likely nationwide), because our medical system is deeply racist. And speaking of racism: I can’t really ...
Rightwingconspirator
1 day, 6 hours ago
Views: 165 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 3
Tweets: 3 •
People’s Convoy Too Distracted by In-Fighting to Sneak Into D.C. The People’s Convoy vowed to do more than just endlessly circle Washington D.C.’s Beltway in urine-soaked jeans when they returned to their base camp at Hagerstown Speedway in Maryland on Wednesday. But instead of somehow sneaking two dozen or ...
Rightwingconspirator
1 day, 6 hours ago
Views: 178 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
YUNGBLUD (With WILLOW) - Memories (Official Music Video) YUNGBLUD (with WILLOW) - Memories (Official Music Video) Stream and download “Memories (with WILLOW)” : yungblud.lnk.to watch more official YUNGBLUD videos: yungblud.lnk.to SIGN UP to YUNGBLUD's Mailing List: yungblud.lnk.to subscribe to YUNGBLUD: yungblud.lnk.to connect with YUNGBLUD online:visit the official ...
Thanos
2 weeks ago
Views: 1,125 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 3 •