Social Con Extremists Tightening Their Hold on the GOP

Charles Johnsonfollow me on twitter
Politics • Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 9:31 am PDT • Views: 615

At the “How to Take Back America” conference last week, attended by Republican leaders including Mike Huckabee, Steve King, and Michele Bachmann, speakers railed against the “Marxist and/or Nazi dictatorship” of President Obama, and promoted a full raft of far right conspiracy theories. Following the Values Voters Summit the previous week (run by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, a man with ties to white supremacists such as David Duke and the Council of Conservative Citizens), this conference was another step in the religious far right’s move to tighten its hold over the GOP by driving out all signs of moderation and inflaming the most extreme elements of the right wing base.

Perhaps the most bizarre speech was this one by pastor Rick Scarborough, a member of Mike Huckabee’s Faith and Values Committee during his presidential campaign.

Scarborough declares himself neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but a “Christocrat,” who believes the US Constitution was a “godly document,” and the Bible is intended to “direct the affairs of all of mankind.” Then he turns his increasingly hysterical attention toward Planned Parenthood, calling it a “demonic” organization that “slaughters innocent unborn children.” Homosexuals are “sodomites,” he shrieks, promoted by the “minions” of the Obama administration who are planning to put Christians in jail and ban the Bible.

This is the religious far right at its crazy, ranting worst — and as you watch, remember that Scarborough is actually an adviser to major GOP politicians.

The St. Louis Beacon has a report on the conference with more details on its extremist agenda: Leaders at conservative conference call for tougher talk against abortion, gays.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann — a favorite among conservatives — brought hundreds here to their feet Saturday as she asserted that Americans are now witnessing a “gangster government” controlling Washington and running the country.

But Bachmann, R-Minn., contended that the Tea Parties and other conservative rallies are galvanizing public support to “defund the left” and put conservative Republicans back in power. …

The conference was organized by Eagle Forum, a conservative public policy organization founded by Phyllis Schlafly, a St. Louis area native who now lives in Ladue. …

Tough talk by Bachmann and Huckabee exemplified the chief message at the conference:

When it comes to the conservative battle over various matters — from health care and taxes to social issues like gay rights and abortion — it’s time for activists to get less genteel and more graphic.

“We’ve circled the wagons defending the word ‘marriage,’ ” said Matt Barber, a leader in Virginia’s conservative “Liberty Council.”

“We need to highlight the fact that homosexual behavior will always be destructive, wrong and dangerous. It’s time for fighting back against homosexual behavior.”

To do that, Barber said, conservatives need to be more specific about what homosexuality entails.

Barber was the co-leader of one of the two dozen workshops to be conducted during the two-day conference. Barber called for conservatives to be more confrontational if they want to succeed against the “radical homosexual activist movement,” that he said has the ear and support of President Barack Obama.

At Saturday’s luncheon, convention co-chair Janet Folger Porter — founder of Faith2Action, a conservative family resource group — contended that the proposed federal hate-crimes legislation should really be called “the pedophile protection act.”

Porter and other conference leaders offer a similar approach when it comes to the conservative quest to outlaw abortion. During a workshop, attendees are to be encouraged to watch “MAAFA 21,” a new movie that asserts that abortion providers are targeting African Americans.

“At the core of the abortion agenda is to actually exterminate an ethnic people,” Porter said.

UPDATE at 9/28/09 10:17:25 am:

And of course, the Birther contingent was represented, as well as the kooks who believe the Harry Potter novels promote Satanism.

Sharing the stage with Bachmann will be Janet Porter of the religious right group Faith2Action. Her latest fear is that the Obama administration will force H1N1 vaccinations on citizens, carting off those who refuse to internment camps. She’s made friends within the “birther” movement for her frequent articles calling for an investigation of President Obama because she doesn’t think he’s a citizen.

“The media bought it. The voters bought it. And now some in Congress are resisting the idea of congressional hearings because they believe that Barack Obama’s ‘birth certificate’ has been posted online,” she wrote in WorldNetDaily, a rightwing news service. “What if an imposter from another country ran for the presidency and won? What if the media blocked any news of his birthplace and citizenship?”

WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah is also a rightwing conspiracy theorist whose website encouraged readers to send letters to Obama on his birthday inquiring about his place of birth — all for the low price of $6.95. Farah is an organizer of the event as well.

Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, also a conference organizer, made headlines when his group threatened to sue a school library for violating the separation of church and state for awarding children who finished Harry Potter novels with a “Hogwarts’ Certificate of Accomplishment.”

“We believe that witchcraft is a religion and the certificate of witchcraft endorsed a particular religion in violation of the First Amendment establishment clause,” Staver said of the threatened lawsuit.

Advertisement

198 comments

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

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 thedopefishlives  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:32:36am

The wardens have all left the building. The nuts are now firmly in charge of the asylum.

2 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:33:18am

If Barry can get called out (and rightly so) for his whacky associates, any and every possible GOP nominee associated with these jokers deserves it too.

3 laZardo  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:35:20am

With conservatism eating itself away on the fringe like this, I don't see why a truly liberal party hasn't prepared itself to fill the void with the Democrats still firmly attached to political machines of old as well.

4 albusteve  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:36:17am

seditionist Christocrats!

5 sngnsgt  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:37:14am

Good grief.

6 Kragar  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:38:31am

A note to the GOP.

You aren't getting a dime or ounce of support from me if these bastards are running the show.

7 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:38:52am

I am perplexed at how these people who want more and more control over people's freedoms can call themselves "conservative".

I am conservative in all ways, including "socially" conservative, and I live my life accordingly.

The less control our government and leadership can have our lives, the better able we ALL are to live as socially conservative or liberal as we choose.

And thanks, Charles, for including the "extremist" in there, because that is what these folks are. I can't identify with much of anything they're talking about.

8 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:39:25am

This sort of behavior will surly keep them out of the majority as it did during the 30s when they pulled the same sort of bullshit.

I think I'm starting to agree with Ojoe that it is time for a new party.

9 jaunte  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:40:07am

Professional infidels?

10 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:40:36am

re: #8 Honorary Yooper

This sort of behavior will surly keep them out of the majority as it did during the 30s when they pulled the same sort of bullshit.

I think I'm starting to agree with Ojoe that it is time for a new party.

Whether it's formed by defections from Conservatives in the Republican party, or by expulsions (which seems unlikely) of these whackos from the Republican party; either way

11 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:40:53am

re: #9 jaunte

Professional infidels?

More like Professional Idiots. I think these folks are such professional idiots that they've got to be licensed by the state to be professional idiots.

12 thedopefishlives  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:41:01am

re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

A note to the GOP.

You aren't getting a dime or ounce of support from me if these bastards are running the show.


FTFY.

13 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:41:31am

re: #10 Guanxi88

Whether it's formed by defections from Conservatives in the Republican party, or by expulsions (which seems unlikely) of these whackos from the Republican party; either way

Either they leave, or we leave. Either way, this separation has been long in coming.

14 jaunte  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:42:33am

re: #11 Honorary Yooper

Sorry, forgot the quotes. "Professional infidels" was Rick Scarborough's characterization of his opponents, I think.

15 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:43:00am

re: #13 Honorary Yooper

Either they leave, or we leave. Either way, this separation has been long in coming.

In fact, such a divorce from the socon extremists is refreshing. Let them show to the world what assholes they are, and let the rest of us get the hell away from them.

16 laZardo  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:43:05am

re: #10 Guanxi88

Whether it's formed by defections from Conservatives in the Republican party, or by expulsions (which seems unlikely) of these whackos from the Republican party; either way

There's a difference?

17 jaunte  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:43:09am

re: #14 jaunte

"Holy war" is next, when the professional infidels are the opponent.

18 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:43:40am

re: #16 laZardo

There's a difference?

Well, we can either throw these guys outta our place, or we can get a new place.

19 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:43:47am

re: #14 jaunte

Sorry, forgot the quotes. "Professional infidels" was Rick Scarborough's characterization of his opponents, I think.

I still like calling people like Rick Scarborough "Professional Idiots".

20 Ray in TX  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:44:13am

He noted the problems started in the past 30 years. If I call, that was about when Reagan took office and the GOP resurgence began.

He should check his notes more closely.

21 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:44:36am
“We need to highlight the fact that homosexual behavior will always be destructive, wrong and dangerous. It’s time for fighting back against homosexual behavior.”

And I'm supposed to think these people are in favor of less intrusive government when they want to barge into people's bedrooms? It's none of their business what two consenting adults do in private. None.

22 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:45:06am

re: #19 Honorary Yooper

I still like calling people like Rick Scarborough "Professional Idiots".

I don't think these folk are professionals - they're enthusiastic amateurs. A professional takes time away from his profession for a life; an enthusiastic amateur lives for nothing but.

23 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:45:20am

re: #17 jaunte

"Holy war" is next, when the professional infidels are the opponent.

Yep. They aren't much different from the far left when you look at them. Both consider their opponents "evil" and would rather wage a holy war against them than cooperate with them.

Pardon me while I puke.

24 Danny  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:46:41am

Bad enough the socons are making a joke of the republican party, but much MUCH worse that they crap all over Christianity.

25 laZardo  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:47:16am

re: #18 Guanxi88

We could move in next door, as the neighbors are re-aligning themselves a couple houses to the left anyway.

26 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:47:50am

re: #25 laZardo

We could move in next door, as the neighbors are re-aligning themselves a couple houses to the left anyway.

Maybe something to that.

27 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:47:58am

re: #7 reine.de.tout

And thanks, Charles, for including the "extremist" in there, because that is what these folks are. I can't identify with much of anything they're talking about.

They're extremists, yes, but this kind of madness is becoming ever more mainstream in the Republican Party.

28 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:49:13am
But Bachmann, R-Minn., contended that the Tea Parties and other conservative rallies are galvanizing public support to “defund the left” and put conservative Republicans back in power. ...

She's delusional. Joe Wilson's opponent raised more money after his outburst than Joe did.

29 schlagerman  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:49:38am

Statements like these make me ashamed to tell anyone I'm a Republican. Michael Steele had better find a way to relegate these people to the sidelines, or the opportunity to make gains in 2010 will be gone. I believe conservative positions will win elections, but these comments are way over the line. Where have all the sane people gone? The talk of a third party is quite intriguing.

30 Ray in TX  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:49:59am

re: #27 Charles

They're extremists, yes, but this kind of madness is becoming ever mainstream in the Republican Party.

So when exactly do we get our party back? Do we have to wait for the inevitable Palin 2012 flameout to start some sensible rebuilding, or is there a way to marginalize this element without collapsing the party?

I'm stumped.

31 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:50:26am

re: #27 Charles

They're extremists, yes, but this kind of madness is becoming ever mainstream in the Republican Party.

I wonder how much of this is reaction to having run and lost with McCain, how much of it is just the natural swing of the pendulum, and how much of it is a sign (as is the radicalization of the Left) of a growing decay in this nation.

32 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:50:47am

Meanwhile, Dan "black kids fear me" Riehl is speculating that Bill Sparkman, the census worker found murdered in Kentucky, was a child predator.

Not kidding.

33 bratwurst  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:50:57am

re: #28 Sharmuta

She's delusional. Joe Wilson's opponent raised more money after his outburst than Joe did.

I am afraid that the tide has turned and Wilson has now doubled up his opponent in post-outburst fundraising.

34 Equable  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:51:06am

re: #27 Charles

This is unfortunate, because the main reason this is happening is big money. If we're to stop them in our tracks it is time to channel out inner "Encyclopedia Browns" and follow the money to see if we can deconstruct them and take it back.

All it takes is one Rathergate or a couple of kids with a camcorder to bring down the mighty (Acorn).

35 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:51:16am

re: #27 Charles

They're extremists, yes, but this kind of madness is becoming ever more mainstream in the Republican Party.

It's either mainstreaming or becoming extremely noisy. Whichever is the case, they're the only voices talking right now.

36 laZardo  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:51:26am

re: #29 schlagerman

The third party will probably be a leftist party filling the void as the Democrats are poised to become realigned to the new right wing. Much of the Democrat constituency still holds conservative family values.

37 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:51:39am

Behold the craziness in full bloom:

[Link: www.riehlworldview.com...]

38 Kragar  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:51:40am

re: #32 Charles

Meanwhile, Dan "black kids fear me" Riehl is speculating that Bill Sparkman, the census worker found murdered in Kentucky, was a child predator.

Not kidding.

On what grounds?

39 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:51:41am

re: #34 Equable

This is unfortunate, because the main reason this is happening is big money. If we're to stop them in our tracks it is time to channel out inner "Encyclopedia Browns" and follow the money to see if we can deconstruct them and take it back.

All it takes is one Rathergate or a couple of kids with a camcorder to bring down the mighty (Acorn).

Upding for a reference to one of childhood literary heroes.

40 Equable  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:52:04am

re: #39 Guanxi88

Upding for a reference to one of childhood literary heroes.

Thank you, I LOVE the series to this day.

41 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:52:16am

re: #21 Sharmuta

And I'm supposed to think these people are in favor of less intrusive government when they want to barge into people's bedrooms? It's none of their business what two consenting adults do in private. None.

They aren't Conservatives in any sense of the word. They've piggybacked onto the popularity of the Conservative movement and hijacked it to further their own, distinctly un-Conservative agenda.

There is no such thing as a "Social Conservative" or a "Fiscal Conservative." There is only Conservatism, with it's core emphasis on limited, non-intrusive government. "Social Conservatism" - an attempt to enforce the morals and religion of a few on the many - is a contradiction in terms. True Conservatism ensures that government is limited to the point where all individuals are free to live their lives as they alone see fit - it does not promote one group's ideology over all others and attempt to enforce it's strictures on those who disagree.

42 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:52:32am

re: #32 Charles


Meanwhile, Dan "black kids fear me" Riehl is speculating that Bill Sparkman, the census worker found murdered in Kentucky, was a child predator.

Not kidding.

WND has an article up this morning that he was killed by illegal aliens.

43 bosforus  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:52:43am

Can we start calling these people imams yet?

44 bosforus  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:52:57am

re: #43 bosforus

Can we start calling these people imams yet?

Fatwahs can't be far off.

45 laZardo  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:54:07am

re: #41 SixDegrees

They aren't Conservatives in any sense of the word. They've piggybacked onto the popularity of the Conservative movement and hijacked it to further their own, distinctly un-Conservative agenda.

There is no such thing as a "Social Conservative" or a "Fiscal Conservative." There is only Conservatism, with it's core emphasis on limited, non-intrusive government. "Social Conservatism" - an attempt to enforce the morals and religion of a few on the many - is a contradiction in terms. True Conservatism ensures that government is limited to the point where all individuals are free to live their lives as they alone see fit - it does not promote one group's ideology over all others and attempt to enforce it's strictures on those who disagree.

Sounds more like libertarianism (lowercase 'l', mind, not the party) than Conservatism in terms of smaller government, and indeed there are bureaucracy issues that certainly need addressing. That it is the conservatives pushing them is what is causing distress...

46 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:54:35am

re: #30 Ray in TX

So when exactly do we get our party back? Do we have to wait for the inevitable Palin 2012 flameout to start some sensible rebuilding, or is there a way to marginalize this element without collapsing the party?

I'm stumped.

I wish I knew. It may just have to run its course and discredit itself. If they fail majorly and spectacularly in 2012, two extremes may happen. Either this shit is so thoroughly discredited that no one listens to them, or they believe they lost because they did have enough of this shit. I would rather it be the former.

47 Expand Your Ground  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:54:41am

These fellows continue to confuse "freedom of religion" with "freedom to shove one's religious views down everybody else's throats".

The Pilgrims did not come to America because they were being oppressed, they were just not allowed to oppress eveyone else in Europe to their liking.

They continued their practices here until the majority of non-Puritan settlers forced them to back down and allow a separation of church and state.

48 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:55:39am

re: #42 Killgore Trout

WND has an article up this morning that he was killed by illegal aliens.

Have there been any more facts released to your knowledge?

49 schlagerman  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:56:36am

re: #36 laZardo

I'm not so sure it will be just leftist, but more centrist. I now understand what Zell Miller was talking about when he said his party left him. I see the Republicans drifting further away from me to accomodate a small but vocal fringe, and by doing so, legitimizing that fringe into the mainstream. Scary stuff.

50 Kragar  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:56:55am

re: #48 Pianobuff

Have there been any more facts released to your knowledge?

Who needs facts when wild speculation is so much better for business?

/

51 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:57:25am

re: #48 Pianobuff

Have there been any more facts released to your knowledge?

No, I checked this morning and there haven't been any new details released.

52 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:57:51am

re: #47 ralphieboy

These fellows continue to confuse "freedom of religion" with "freedom to shove one's religious views down everybody else's throats".

The Pilgrims did not come to America because they were being oppressed, they were just not allowed to oppress eveyone else in Europe to their liking.

They continued their practices here until the majority of non-Puritan settlers forced them to back down and allow a separation of church and state.

That was certainly a large part of the inspiration for the First Amendment. Another was the example the colonists were living under - the Monarchy of England wedded to the Church of England, and the enormous corruption and abuse that flowed from that union.

53 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:57:55am

re: #47 ralphieboy

These fellows continue to confuse "freedom of religion" with "freedom to shove one's religious views down everybody else's throats".

The Pilgrims [and Puritans] did not come to America because they were being oppressed, they were just not allowed to oppress eveyone else in Europe to their liking.

They continued their practices here until the majority of non-Puritan settlers forced them to back down and allow a separation of church and state.

Very much so.
(Added the Puritans to your first statement - they were two different groups, the Pilgrims and the Puritans.)

54 laZardo  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:58:00am

re: #49 schlagerman

It could be centrist in that it's socially liberal (e.g. gay rights, pro-choice) but at the same time wanting to reform the political machine.

55 Liberal Classic  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:59:06am

re: #7 reine.de.tout

The less control our government and leadership can have our lives, the better able we ALL are to live as socially conservative or liberal as we choose.

re: #41 SixDegrees

True Conservatism ensures that government is limited to the point where all individuals are free to live their lives as they alone see fit - it does not promote one group's ideology over all others and attempt to enforce it's strictures on those who disagree.

No true Scottsman withstanding, I characterize these positions as being liberal.

56 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:00:26am

re: #55 Liberal Classic

No true Scottsman withstanding, I characterize these positions as being liberal.

They're classically liberal, but not what modern liberals in the US follow. These ideas are also ignored widely by the religious right.

57 affenkopf  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:01:37am
To do that, Barber said, conservatives need to be more specific about what homosexuality entails.

There are plenty of conservative politicians from the religious right that can become very specific about what homosexuality entails.

58 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:02:06am

re: #41 SixDegrees

They aren't Conservatives in any sense of the word. They've piggybacked onto the popularity of the Conservative movement and hijacked it to further their own, distinctly un-Conservative agenda.

There is no such thing as a "Social Conservative" or a "Fiscal Conservative." There is only Conservatism, with it's core emphasis on limited, non-intrusive government. "Social Conservatism" - an attempt to enforce the morals and religion of a few on the many - is a contradiction in terms. True Conservatism ensures that government is limited to the point where all individuals are free to live their lives as they alone see fit - it does not promote one group's ideology over all others and attempt to enforce it's strictures on those who disagree.

I agree- there is nothing more upsetting to me as a conservative than to get lumped in with a group of people who are the antithesis of conservatism, but stole the name for themselves. What really gets me is the logical disconnect of claiming to support less government when in reality they're proposing more.

Hypocrisy is a pet peeve of mine, and if I'm asked to support a party that's displaying such a high level of hypocrisy as this, they can forget my support altogether.

59 schlagerman  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:02:10am

re: #54 laZardo


Reform is badly needed on both sides. The increasingly fiery rhetoric further separates the Dems and Reps. It seems like all politics is now personal.

60 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:02:20am

re: #42 Killgore Trout

WND has an article up this morning that he was killed by illegal aliens.

Hey, why not? At this point, the one thing they're sure of is that nobody THEY know or like had anything to do with it. Why, if he were tied to an oak tree, that might just suggest an ACORN/Satanism nexus, with this poor man sacrificed in a desperate bid to maintain their power, or, alternately, watering the tree of Tyranny...

61 abbyadams  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:02:43am

re: #32 Charles

That is disgusting. Is it just me, or is that a "cya" comment? "Our inflammatory remarks regarding the census might possibly be implicated in a murder, so here, look at this shiny object instead!"

62 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:03:16am

re: #59 schlagerman

Reform is badly needed on both sides. The increasingly fiery rhetoric further separates the Dems and Reps. It seems like all politics is now personal.

Welcome to the early 19th Century.

63 Kragar  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:03:17am

re: #61 abbyadams

That is disgusting. Is it just me, or is that a "cya" comment? "Our inflammatory remarks regarding the census might possibly be implicated in a murder, so here, look at this shiny object instead!"

OOOH! Shiiiny.

64 Equable  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:03:21am

re: #61 abbyadams

That is disgusting. Is it just me, or is that a "cya" comment? "Our inflammatory remarks regarding the census might possibly be implicated in a murder, so here, look at this shiny object instead!"

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

65 abbyadams  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:04:01am

Please, Republicans...if you have a rep or senator (even state) that denounces this stuff, flood their office with calls and letters of support.

Someone needs to stand up and take the party back!

66 Ray in TX  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:04:11am

re: #46 Honorary Yooper

I wish I knew. It may just have to run its course and discredit itself. If they fail majorly and spectacularly in 2012, two extremes may happen. Either this shit is so thoroughly discredited that no one listens to them, or they believe they lost because they did have enough of this shit. I would rather it be the former.

It's going to become more of an issue as moderates continue their flight into the Democratic party. As some point, the Dems could co-opt enough of the core conservative values that a rebuilding a viable conservative party becomes exceedingly difficult.

The whole libertarian notion of "government staying out of your personal life" is now almost a core principle of the Dems, directly as a response to the social conservative overreach. I see them making a lot of gains in foreign policy as well.

67 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:05:09am

re: #55 Liberal Classic

No true Scottsman withstanding, I characterize these positions as being liberal.

Both "conservative" and "liberal" have been applied to people who don't warrant them. I can't call a marxist like Ayers a liberal.

68 laZardo  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:05:29am

re: #65 abbyadams

The party should be let to die, and with it the principles that have held back progress in the past 200 years.

69 abbyadams  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:05:36am

re: #65 abbyadams

(For the record, NONE of my R reps at any level will. I've asked. Repeatedly.)

70 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:05:44am

re: #60 Guanxi88

Hey, why not? At this point, the one thing they're sure of is that nobody THEY know or like had anything to do with it. Why, if he were tied to an oak tree, that might just suggest an ACORN/Satanism nexus, with this poor man sacrificed in a desperate bid to maintain their power, or, alternately, watering the tree of Tyranny...

Hot Air commenters were speculating last week that the murder was a frame up to distract from the ACORN issue.

71 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:05:59am

re: #55 Liberal Classic

No true Scottsman withstanding, I characterize these positions as being liberal.

Perhaps at some point in the past. The current Liberal penchant to reach for government solutions to all problems, however, is certainly not in sync with such an outlook. Attempts to exert government oversight over the smallest details of individuals lives - banning transfats, taxing soda and gasoline in order to achieve perceived health and environmental ends, takings of property without compensation and rendering the value of property worthless in the name of conservation are examples that leap easily to mind, among many others.

72 gregb  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:06:05am

re: #20 Ray in TX

He noted the problems started in the past 30 years. If I call, that was about when Reagan took office and the GOP resurgence began.

He should check his notes more closely.

Up until 1973, it was classified as a mental disorder.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

73 MikeySDCA  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:06:06am

re: #62 Honorary Yooper

Welcome to the early 1916th Century.

74 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:06:20am

re: #66 Ray in TX

It's going to become more of an issue as moderates continue their flight into the Democratic party. As some point, the Dems could co-opt enough of the core conservative values that a rebuilding a viable conservative party becomes exceedingly difficult.

Do you (or anyone else) have any recent stats on that? I haven't been following party registration trends that closely this year.

75 jaunte  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:06:23am

re: #37 Charles

Behold the craziness in full bloom:

[Link: www.riehlworldview.com...]

I see Riehl is in the comments saying "there's nothing wrong with speculating..." What a cynical way to drive up his readership.

76 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:06:30am

Quick O.T.

I need a response for "Gemar Chatimah Tova" from a Jewish friend of mine.

78 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:07:14am

re: #60 Guanxi88

Hey, why not? At this point, the one thing they're sure of is that nobody THEY know or like had anything to do with it. Why, if he were tied to an oak tree, that might just suggest an ACORN/Satanism nexus, with this poor man sacrificed in a desperate bid to maintain their power, or, alternately, watering the tree of Tyranny...

I suspect Planned Parenthood had something to do with it.

79 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:08:02am

re: #76 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Quick O.T.

I need a response for "Gemar Chatimah Tova" from a Jewish friend of mine.

Right Back at ya', or Gut Yuntiff

80 schlagerman  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:08:10am

re: #62 Honorary Yooper


I'm waiting for someone to challenge their political rival to a duel. I wish I could say I was just kidding, but sadly, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.

81 Liberal Classic  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:08:31am

re: #56 Honorary Yooper

They're classically liberal, but not what modern liberals in the US follow. These ideas are also ignored widely by the religious right.

Well, yeah. Political labels, while not meaningless, are slippery things.

It seems to me that authoritarian positions are strengthening at both the left and right extrema and moving inward, which in turn is kind of squeezing moderates into the center.

The FDA banned flavored tobacco, including clove cigarettes the other day. Menthol cigarettes narrowly dodged the axe. Is banning tobacco a liberal position? Is it a conservative position?

The major parties have reinvent themselves at least once per generation. The Republicans and Democrats aren't the same as the parties from the 50s, or 20s. I honestly thing the whole left-right axis is pretty much shot.

If the GOP transforms itself into the "Christian Republicans" then where are the capitalists going to go? To the Democrats?

82 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:08:42am

re: #78 Charles

I suspect Planned Parenthood had something to do with it.

Only if he were Black; I understand that is the preferred target of their organization. (Jeez!)

83 abbyadams  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:08:51am

re: #77 Killgore Trout

Oy.

84 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:09:39am

re: #79 Guanxi88

Really? You wouldn't embarras me, would you?

85 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:09:48am
Barber called for conservatives to be more confrontational if they want to succeed against the “radical homosexual activist movement,” that he said has the ear and support of President Barack Obama.

What are they even talking about?! Obama doesn't support same-sex marriage. They just want to attack him for everything, and not bother to find common ground where they can.

86 Ray in TX  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:09:52am

re: #74 Pianobuff

Do you (or anyone else) have any recent stats on that? I haven't been following party registration trends that closely this year.

I'm pretty sure that party self-identification started making a sharp Democratic turn during the second Bush administration. I'm pretty sure that I am still registered as a Republican in TX, but I haven't 'identified' with the GOP for a few years.

87 avanti  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:10:17am

Here's the basic problem as I see it.

A socially liberal, fiscal conservative could win the the left and the moderates and lose the base. A social and fiscal conservative can win the base and lose the left and the moderates. Neither will beat a liberal that's both. In a nut shell, neither party can give us a fiscal conservative that stays out of our bedrooms and leaves us free to practice our faith or lack thereof.

88 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:10:42am

re: #84 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Really? You wouldn't embarras me, would you?

He's wishing that you be sealed for the year in the Book of Life, a standard blessing for the season. The yiddish bit I threw at you is a general purpose, but non-religious greeting or response on holidays.

89 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:10:45am

re: #81 Liberal Classic

I hate clove cigs with a passion. In a bar full of smoke, I'll look up and say, "WHO FARTED!?"

90 jaunte  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:11:07am

re: #85 Sharmuta

Are they attacking Dick Cheney for being to the left of Obama on gay marriage?

91 Liberal Classic  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:11:07am

re: #71 SixDegrees

Perhaps at some point in the past. The current Liberal penchant to reach for government solutions to all problems, however, is certainly not in sync with such an outlook. Attempts to exert government oversight over the smallest details of individuals lives - banning transfats, taxing soda and gasoline in order to achieve perceived health and environmental ends, takings of property without compensation and rendering the value of property worthless in the name of conservation are examples that leap easily to mind, among many others.

Is this really liberalism, or is this left-authoritarianism? Is there a difference? Note that there's plenty of advocacy for taxing and banning things coming from "conservatives" too, all done in the name of the greater good.

92 MandyManners  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:11:16am

For whiich major GOP politicians is Scarborough an advisor? I've looked but other then Huckabee, I've found none.

93 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:11:41am

re: #86 Ray in TX

I'm pretty sure that party self-identification started making a sharp Democratic turn during the second Bush administration. I'm pretty sure that I am still registered as a Republican in TX, but I haven't 'identified' with the GOP for a few years.

I'm thinking more of what's going on in 2009. Clearly the Dem rolls increased prior - just wondering where the movement has been this year and to what extent "moderates are continuing their flight".

94 MandyManners  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:12:14am

than

95 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:12:21am

re: #80 schlagerman

I'm waiting for someone to challenge their political rival to a duel. I wish I could say I was just kidding, but sadly, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.

In this political climate? A duel between politicians wouldn't shock me in the least anymore. Shoot, they'll need the metal detectors at the entrances of the Capitol not to keep out nuts with guns but to stop Representatives and Senators from using them on each other!

Pistols in the Capitol were very common the early 19th Century. They also beat each other with canes in the halls on and the floor.

96 ointmentfly  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:12:54am

Part of me has no problem with right wing nuts drawing fire. It makes room for a clean conservative to emerge. By clean I mean not associated with these apocalyptic nuts.

97 avanti  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:13:44am

re: #92 MandyManners

For whiich major GOP politicians is Scarborough an advisor? I've looked but other then Huckabee, I've found none.

As of today, Huck is the leading candidate with the base.

98 jaunte  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:14:16am

re: #92 MandyManners

For whiich major GOP politicians is Scarborough an advisor? I've looked but other then Huckabee, I've found none.

Tom Delay, Alan Keyes.

99 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:14:39am

re: #90 jaunte

Are they attacking Dick Cheney for being to the left of Obama on gay marriage?

Why would they want to attempt intellectual consistency? They might have to admit they're not conservatives who believe in less intrusive government if they started down that path.

100 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:14:52am

re: #97 avanti

As of today, Huck is the leading candidate with the base.

Not sure if 'tis so, but if so, then bad news for the party and the nation. There's almost no limit to what people will put up with, it seems.

101 schlagerman  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:15:11am

re: #95 Honorary Yooper

They also beat each other with canes in the halls on and the floor.

Sounds like a pay-per-view special to me! C-Span would have its largest audience ever.

102 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:15:55am

re: #98 jaunte

Tom Delay, Alan Keyes.

Keyes seems to be becoming more an more of what they're all about. DeLay's out of politics, and we'll see tomorrow if he's out of Dancing.

Gotta wonder if his enemies are voting for him to make a fool of himself or if they're voting against him.

103 flyers1974  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:16:50am

re: #41 SixDegrees

They aren't Conservatives in any sense of the word. They've piggybacked onto the popularity of the Conservative movement and hijacked it to further their own, distinctly un-Conservative agenda.

There is no such thing as a "Social Conservative" or a "Fiscal Conservative." There is only Conservatism, with it's core emphasis on limited, non-intrusive government. "Social Conservatism" - an attempt to enforce the morals and religion of a few on the many - is a contradiction in terms. True Conservatism ensures that government is limited to the point where all individuals are free to live their lives as they alone see fit - it does not promote one group's ideology over all others and attempt to enforce it's strictures on those who disagree.

I would beg to differ with the idea that social issues aren't part of conservativism. Conservativism is whatever it is at the time. Liberals and Conservatives aren't like Nazis and Communists. The latter had rigid ideals and even manifestos spelling out what they were about. Nazis weren't ever going to change their stance and become pro-Jew, for example. On the other hand, the meaning of liberal and conservative changes over time. What was a liberal position in the 1930's? Or the 1950's? I'd say gay rights for example were not on anyone's radar then.

104 avanti  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:17:23am

re: #100 Guanxi88

Not sure if 'tis so, but if so, then bad news for the party and the nation. There's almost no limit to what people will put up with, it seems.

Here's a recent
poll.

105 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:17:36am

re: #91 Liberal Classic

Is this really liberalism, or is this left-authoritarianism? Is there a difference? Note that there's plenty of advocacy for taxing and banning things coming from "conservatives" too, all done in the name of the greater good.

And that's why folks here think people like that are not conservatives.

106 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:17:57am

Of course, the Birther contingent was represented at the Take Back America conference, as well as the kooks who believe the Harry Potter novels promote Satanism.

Sharing the stage with Bachmann will be Janet Porter of the religious right group Faith2Action. Her latest fear is that the Obama administration will force H1N1 vaccinations on citizens, carting off those who refuse to internment camps. She’s made friends within the “birther” movement for her frequent articles calling for an investigation of President Obama because she doesn’t think he’s a citizen.

“The media bought it. The voters bought it. And now some in Congress are resisting the idea of congressional hearings because they believe that Barack Obama’s ‘birth certificate’ has been posted online,” she wrote in WorldNetDaily, a rightwing news service. “What if an imposter from another country ran for the presidency and won? What if the media blocked any news of his birthplace and citizenship?”

WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah is also a rightwing conspiracy theorist whose website encouraged readers to send letters to Obama on his birthday inquiring about his place of birth — all for the low price of $6.95. Farah is an organizer of the event as well.

Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, also a conference organizer, made headlines when his group threatened to sue a school library for violating the separation of church and state for awarding children who finished Harry Potter novels with a “Hogwarts’ Certificate of Accomplishment.”

“We believe that witchcraft is a religion and the certificate of witchcraft endorsed a particular religion in violation of the First Amendment establishment clause,” Staver said of the threatened lawsuit.

107 jaunte  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:18:02am

re: #98 jaunte

Tom Delay, Alan Keyes.



One Day Crusade To Save America

108 laZardo  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:18:49am

re: #103 flyers1974

Both Democrats and Republicans were officially isolationist in 1940, I recall.

But I generally agree with you. The Founding Fathers would not have seen Emancipation a century after Independence, and civil rights another century after.

109 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:18:52am

re: #95 Honorary Yooper

Remember that "Peace" commercial from the seventies? Said something like, "Wouldn't it be great if the men in power settled it between themselves?" or something like that.

Two old codgers in a board room beating the shit out of each other was on screen.

110 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:19:25am

re: #87 avanti

Here's the basic problem as I see it.

A socially liberal, fiscal conservative could win the the left and the moderates and lose the base. A social and fiscal conservative can win the base and lose the left and the moderates. Neither will beat a liberal that's both. In a nut shell, neither party can give us a fiscal conservative that stays out of our bedrooms and leaves us free to practice our faith or lack thereof.

That's because he got sent to China. Maybe 2016 he'll have a chance.

111 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:19:43am

re: #86 Ray in TX

I'm pretty sure that party self-identification started making a sharp Democratic turn during the second Bush administration. I'm pretty sure that I am still registered as a Republican in TX, but I haven't 'identified' with the GOP for a few years.

I found something here

According to this, D affiliation hit its most recent peak around election time. Since then, it's gone down somewhere around 4 points. R affiliation has been mired in the same general area since early 2006.

It appears that the biggest move this year has been from D to Independent, where ranks have grown.

112 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:20:02am

re: #104 avanti

Here's a recent
poll.

Well, I'll console myself with the knowledge that he polled well among the Values Voters folk; the spiritual (if not physical) identicals of these jokers; which is roughly comparable to polling the Rolling Stones to find out which is the best band.

113 avanti  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:20:06am

re: #104 avanti

Here's a recent
poll.

Sorry, that was not a general poll, this one
is.

114 gregb  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:20:20am

re: #61 abbyadams

That is disgusting. Is it just me, or is that a "cya" comment? "Our inflammatory remarks regarding the census might possibly be implicated in a murder, so here, look at this shiny object instead!"

General's daughter was on TV this past weekend.

"Profit, revenge, jealousy,
conceal a crime, avoid disgrace -
- or homicidal mania.
Right there in the manual."

The only thing that's missing it ideology. According to the USA Today article, the victim was undergoing cancer treatment. Using an abundance of caution, they are waiting to make sure that ideological concerns, pro or con, are not involved.

It sounds like the investigation is working its course.

[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

115 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:21:04am

re: #106 Charles

Of course, the Birther contingent was represented at the Take Back America conference, as well as the kooks who believe the Harry Potter novels promote Satanism.

My pastor was at a conference with his son. Son was reading Harry Potter. Tony Campolo (a leading Christian thinker) walked by them, noticed and told my pastor, "There is more theology in that book than in the entire "Left Behind" series."

I've quoted Tony Campolo here several times.

116 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:21:26am

re: #111 Pianobuff

It appears that the biggest move this year has been from D to Independent, where ranks have grown.

Would not surpise me if a lot of people were just sick of politics right now. The 2008 election was grueling, and took a lot out of a lot of people.

117 MandyManners  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:21:29am

re: #97 avanti

As of today, Huck is the leading candidate with the base.

I don't consider him a major GOP poltician. Perhaps I'm wrong.

118 avanti  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:22:16am

re: #112 Guanxi88

Well, I'll console myself with the knowledge that he polled well among the Values Voters folk; the spiritual (if not physical) identicals of these jokers; which is roughly comparable to polling the Rolling Stones to find out which is the best band.

I fixed that with my previous post of a general poll, sorry.

better poll.

119 MandyManners  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:22:54am

re: #98 jaunte

Tom Delay, Alan Keyes.

Delay's influence has slipped, and I don't think Keyes ever had any real influence in the power structure of the GOP.

120 ointmentfly  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:23:21am

re: #106 Charles

WND is the right wing Star tabloid. Nothing on that site should be taken seriously. Farah knows he peddles crap.

121 flyers1974  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:23:39am

re: #81 Liberal Classic

The FDA banned flavored tobacco, including clove cigarettes the other day. Menthol cigarettes narrowly dodged the axe. Is banning tobacco a liberal position? Is it a conservative position?

Most people would say banning those cigarettes is a liberal position. At the same time, most people would not agree that banning cocaine is a liberal position. If so, what is the difference?

122 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:23:43am

re: #117 MandyManners

I don't consider him a major GOP poltician. Perhaps I'm wrong.

He's still a member of the GOP, and proudly proclaims it. If Huck's the candidate in 2012, I'm voting for Obama, as much as I hate voting for Cook County politicians.

123 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:25:01am

re: #118 avanti

I fixed that with my previous post of a general poll, sorry.

better poll.

Crap! So not only do I have to watch my party tear itself to pieces in manic fits of rage and madness, but I gotta put up with that smug look on Dem faces until Lord knows when?

124 MandyManners  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:25:26am

re: #122 Honorary Yooper

He's still a member of the GOP, and proudly proclaims it. If Huck's the candidate in 2012, I'm voting for Obama, as much as I hate voting for Cook County politicians.

I'm a member of the GOP, and I proudly proclaim it. That doesn't make me a major GOP politician.

125 JEA62  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:26:10am

'“At the core of the abortion agenda is to actually exterminate an ethnic people,” Porter said.'

Since these folks are all lily-white, what the hell's the problem?

126 laZardo  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:27:11am

re: #124 MandyManners

But it does make you guilty by association.

/in a sense

127 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:28:29am

re: #121 flyers1974

The FDA banned flavored tobacco, including clove cigarettes the other day. Menthol cigarettes narrowly dodged the axe. Is banning tobacco a liberal position? Is it a conservative position?

Most people would say banning those cigarettes is a liberal position. At the same time, most people would not agree that banning cocaine is a liberal position. If so, what is the difference?

The banning tobacco to banning cocaine continuum reflect the differing degrees to which prohibitionist thinking as infiltrated our politics. For socio-cultural reasons, tobacco has become a target of persons associated with more or less leftist views in the States, whereas cocaine has been regarded by most as an unacceptable intoxicant for lo, these many decades.

Short answer - who knows? Both should be taxed and regulated.

128 avanti  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:29:09am

re: #123 Guanxi88

Crap! So not only do I have to watch my party tear itself to pieces in manic fits of rage and madness, but I gotta put up with that smug look on Dem faces until Lord knows when?

It's early, maybe a new guy will show up later and build a new base to win in 2016, if not 2012.

129 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:29:13am

re: #124 MandyManners

I'm a member of the GOP, and I proudly proclaim it. That doesn't make me a major GOP politician.

However, Huckabbe has been a major candidate in the primaries, and is making a move to be a forefront of the GOP currently.

130 mj  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:29:20am

The Washington Post, in their obit on William Safire, quoted the late columnist as saying:

'"I'm willing to zap conservatives when they do things that are not libertarian," Mr. Safire told The Post in 2004..."

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

Too bad there aren't many more like him today.

131 laZardo  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:29:21am

re: #127 Guanxi88

The thought of anti-Big Marijuana ads in the same style as today's anti-Big Tobacco ads humors me.

132 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:29:50am

re: #128 avanti

It's early, maybe a new guy will show up later and build a new base to win in 2016, if not 2012.

Great! Things are so bad I gotta turn to Avanti to avoid despairing altogether for the Republican party!

:)

133 Guanxi88  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:30:31am

re: #131 laZardo

The thought of anti-Big Marijuana ads in the same style as today's anti-Big Tobacco ads humors me.

Dude! Big Pot is robbing us blind!
Uh, wait a minute...

134 Sharmuta  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:30:59am

re: #115 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

My pastor was at a conference with his son. Son was reading Harry Potter. Tony Campolo (a leading Christian thinker) walked by them, noticed and told my pastor, "There is more theology in that book than in the entire "Left Behind" series."

I've quoted Tony Campolo here several times.

It's true. The Potter books are wonder examples of good vs. evil, and self-sacrifice.

135 laZardo  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:31:08am

re: #133 Guanxi88

It's all going to the Lizard King, ma~n...

/no offense to Charles

//also, headin' to bed. Nighty.

136 subsailor68  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:31:33am

Afternoon all! This story bothers me a bit:

Wabash Valley woman didn’t realize second cold medicine purchase violated drug laws

Basic issues:

Pseudoephedrine is used in methamphetamine production. It is also used in the production of cold medicine.
People appear to buy the cold medicines to have access to the pseudoephedrine in meth production.
Indiana passed a law saying that it is illegal to purchase products in which the combination would exceed 3.0 grams (total) within a seven day period.
The woman in the story bought cold medicine for her husband. Some number of days (less than seven) later, she purchased cold medicine for her daughter. The combination came to 3.6 grams.
She was arrested.

The part that bothers me a bit is:

Just as with any law, the public has the responsibility to know what is legal and what is not, and ignorance of the law is no excuse, the prosecutor said.

That's what we were all taught in school. But times may have changed. Take the tax code (all three feet high of it - or some such). Even professionals (including IRS folks) will admit they don't know everything it contains - so how could the lay person? But, ignorance is no excuse.

A policeman friend once told me "you know, if I make a traffic stop, and really want to detain someone, I can find a way to do it - perfectly legally - using laws that nobody's really ever heard of." Fortunately, he's a good guy. But, ignorance is no excuse.

The basic idea of stopping meth production is a good one, but if the law is written to force law-abiding citizens to take incredibly complicated steps to ensure they are in compliance (such as knowing - or remembering - how much cold medicine you've bought in a week - and making sure the total pseudoephedrine is below 3.0 grams) the concept of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" becomes chilling in its implication.

Just my thoughts.

137 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:31:38am

re: #91 Liberal Classic

Is this really liberalism, or is this left-authoritarianism? Is there a difference? Note that there's plenty of advocacy for taxing and banning things coming from "conservatives" too, all done in the name of the greater good.

As noted earlier, I don't see how such policies fit with a Conservative agenda.

138 StillAMarine  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:32:01am

The thing that bothers me most is that the ringnut right influence on the Republican Party is going to cause a further four years of loony left power in our government. If the Republicans stand a pile of nutcase creationist truthers for office in 2010 and in 2012, many of us will simply give up in disgust and stay home.

139 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:32:47am

re: #134 Sharmuta

It's true. The Potter books are wonder examples of good vs. evil, and self-sacrifice.

Those need to be banned, by the way. Because they're EEEVVVIILL!!! 'Cause of the witches and stuff, you know.

/ (Like I need it?)

140 CapeCoddah  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:34:04am

re: #77 Killgore Trout

He all... Killgore, I am not looking at that link, I have no reason to doubt you, but, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE SHITTING ME! Anyone who responds in the affirmative to that should be arrested. That is WAY beyond the pale.

141 MandyManners  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:34:25am

re: #129 Honorary Yooper

However, Huckabbe has been a major candidate in the primaries, and is making a move to be a forefront of the GOP currently.

He has a show on Fox. BFD. He's gonna' get shut out by the adults.

142 avanti  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:34:27am

re: #132 Guanxi88

Great! Things are so bad I gotta turn to Avanti to avoid despairing altogether for the Republican party!

:)

Don't think party, think policy. I voted for Clinton because he stayed out of my bedroom, but should have stayed in his. :) I'm sure some on the right see him as fiscally moderate compared to Obama.

143 flyers1974  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:35:07am

re: #108 laZardo

Both Democrats and Republicans were officially isolationist in 1940, I recall.

But I generally agree with you. The Founding Fathers would not have seen Emancipation a century after Independence, and civil rights another century after.

Putting aside social issues, what really distinguishes liberals and conservatives? Conventional wisdom says conservatives spend "less" and liberals spend "more." In practice, is this true? Is it possible to "spend less" in any meaningful way in a modern economy? What should we spend less on? What if a Republican votes to have an unneccesary project built in his district in order to please the voters? Has he ceased to be conservative? Did he become liberal?

144 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:35:14am

re: #136 subsailor68

Hence the problem with "zero tolerance" and other well-meaning laws.

145 MandyManners  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:35:26am

Off to fumigate Mr. Cranky's room.

146 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:39:03am

re: #138 StillAMarine

The thing that bothers me most is that the ringnut right influence on the Republican Party is going to cause a further four years of loony left power in our government. If the Republicans stand a pile of nutcase creationist truthers for office in 2010 and in 2012, many of us will simply give up in disgust and stay home.

Depends. Try to insert creationism into the curriculum in my local school district and I'll do more than stay home; I'll actively fight it, including voting for anyone opposed to such gibberish.

Certainly not a choice I want to have to make. But these motherfuckers aren't going to stop at replacing science with fundie religion; that's just the first step as far as they're concerned. Going forward, they want the entire curriculum replaced with something out of the Middle Ages, focused solely on religion - or whatever the Middle Ages would have been like if Protestant fundamentalists had been around. Their eventual goal is to turn the public school system into a nationwide system of fundie madrassas, and they view that mission with the same zeal and intensity as any jihadist. They differ only in tactics - not in goals - from the Taliban, and getting their foot in the door by way of biology classes (beginning in Kindergarten, by the way - years before anything like evolution is normally taught to anyone) is just the beginning as they see things.

147 drcordell  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:39:29am

re: #143 flyers1974

Putting aside social issues, what really distinguishes liberals and conservatives? Conventional wisdom says conservatives spend "less" and liberals spend "more." In practice, is this true? Is it possible to "spend less" in any meaningful way in a modern economy? What should we spend less on? What if a Republican votes to have an unneccesary project built in his district in order to please the voters? Has he ceased to be conservative? Did he become liberal?

Your definition doesn't really hold water considering the legacy of Reagan, Bush, W Bush and Clinton.

148 flyers1974  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:41:01am

re: #147 drcordell

Your definition doesn't really hold water considering the legacy of Reagan, Bush, W Bush and Clinton.

Not my definition, I'm saying that's what most people think.

149 fizzlogic  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:41:11am

re: #98 jaunte

Didn't Tom Delay go on some tour to take back America for God?

Even Gingrich went on tour to find God in America. And IIRC, Gingrich's five point plan to regain the house after the '06 shellacking included reaching over the isle to the evangelical Democrats--probably the same ones who are also members of "The Family".

150 drcordell  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:45:07am

re: #148 flyers1974

Not my definition, I'm saying that's what most people think.

I suppose. To me the generic definition of Conservative vs. Liberal would be focused around societal change. Namely Liberals/Progressives believe society should embrace change, as it is inevitable. Contrasted with Conservatives who believe that existing social mores should be preserved whenever possible.

151 fizzlogic  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:46:12am

re: #143 flyers1974

Even if the GOP spent less--which it doesn't--it's current dogmatic view on cutting taxes will never balance revenue with spending. The GOP is reckless on fiscal issues.

152 Summer Seale  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:55:04am

They're right about Harry Potter.

I started the books a few years ago...

...and I couldn't finish until I had read them all!!!

It must have been some sort of magical spell, I tells ya!

153 theheat  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:57:12am

re: #81 Liberal Classic

No shit, they banned clove cigarettes? I used to love clove cigarettes as a dessert type cigarette. Sampoerna menthols are the nearest thing to heaven a POS atheist like myself has probably experienced. Obviously, nothing that could could be legal.

This pisses me the hell off, the day when pot is more available than clove cigarettes.

154 theheat  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:58:00am

re: #153 theheat PIMF - nothing that good could be legal.

155 Ray in TX  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:00:14am

re: #111 Pianobuff

I found something here

According to this, D affiliation hit its most recent peak around election time. Since then, it's gone down somewhere around 4 points. R affiliation has been mired in the same general area since early 2006.

It appears that the biggest move this year has been from D to Independent, where ranks have grown.

Yes, it seems the 2008 election bump has settled and we are now back to 2007 levels. And that's Rasmussen.

156 Gus  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:07:03am

If this is where the GOP is going to head than good-bye GOP.

Also, if anyone wants to look at where this latest round of "culture war rhetoric" began this year, Rick Scarborough's "sermon" and the general mood of this Values Voter Sumiit is the starting point.

They're going to lose the independents and the "Reagan Democrats" in future national elections.

157 Athos  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:09:02am

re: #8 Honorary Yooper

This sort of behavior will surly keep them out of the majority as it did during the 30s when they pulled the same sort of bullshit.

I think I'm starting to agree with Ojoe that it is time for a new party.

I'd rather keep working as hard as we can, at this point, to kick the fringe nitwits out. Let them form the modern version of the Dixiecrat party - right down to embracing the white supremacists and creationists.

Refuse to give money to the GOP at any level - and make sure you tell whomever is asking you for money why the funds are cut off. Do directly support candidates that call out these fringe elements as fringe elements - and tell your local GOP officials that until they do, no more money or support. Investigate who is organizing your local meetings and tea parties - if there are any Paulians, Nirthers, Creationists in charge - call them out and refuse to participate. Shine the light on these cockroaches and drive them back to the fringe.

158 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:09:56am
who believes the US Constitution was a “godly document,”

He might say it, but he doesn't believe it, well, he does in as far as it suits his agenda. The parts that do not...he is all for changing them. Even Huckabee is all for weaponizing the constitution to suit his Evangelical agenda. He, Huckabee, mentioned it during his campaign and Rick Scarborough run around in the same circles of belief.

159 idioma  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:17:25am

“We’ve circled the wagons defending the word ‘marriage,’ ” said Matt Barber, a leader in Virginia’s conservative “Liberty Council.”

“We need to highlight the fact that homosexual behavior will always be destructive, wrong and dangerous. It’s time for fighting back against homosexual behavior.”

What exactly is it about homosexuality that makes conservative troglodytes like this so worried?

What are they afraid of?

Can anyone explain this to me?

160 Ojoe  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:19:59am

If this fringing of the GOP bothers you, please check out the Modern Whig Party:

WHO ARE MODERN WHIGS?
Established in 1833, the Whigs are one of America's oldest mainstream political parties. We were the original party of Abraham Lincoln and four other U.S. Presidents.

Revived by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the grassroots movement has quickly attracted tens of thousands of members. We represent moderate voters from all walks of life who cherry-pick between traditional Democratic and Republican ideals in what has been called the Modern Whig Philosophy. This Washington, DC-based national movement values common sense, rational solutions ahead of ideology and partisan bickering.

This includes general principles of fiscal responsibility, strong national defense and educational/scientific advancement.

161 theheat  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:23:33am

re: #159 idioma

Well, more than a few bible-thumping family values conservatives are afraid of being outed, for one. Others like to pull scripture out of their ass to justify condemning homosexuals. The most paranoid of all seem to believe that allowing homosexuals to marry somehow diminishes or endangers their own marriage.

162 idioma  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:28:21am

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann — a favorite among conservatives — brought hundreds here to their feet Saturday as she asserted that Americans are now witnessing a “gangster government” controlling Washington and running the country.

Reminds me of this:

163 Liberal Classic  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:32:01am

re: #153 theheat

No shit, they banned clove cigarettes? I used to love clove cigarettes as a dessert type cigarette. Sampoerna menthols are the nearest thing to heaven a POS atheist like myself has probably experienced. Obviously, nothing that could could be legal.

This pisses me the hell off, the day when pot is more available than clove cigarettes.

Yep. The FDA was given the authority when Pres. Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention Act into law this summer. The tobacco lobby must have some kind of influence left, because this ban covers all flavors except menthol.

I haven't smoked cigarettes for a long time, and I never into flavored tobacco much. However, this is the worst kind of lawmaking. It represents the worst of Washington DC: A combination of for your own good-ism run amok combined with special interest lobbying. It's not going to stop tobacco use, and it is going to drive many small specialty companies and importers out of business. These smaller companies don't have the political clout the large manufacturers do, which is why their products gets banned while menthol cigarettes don't, even though menthols are clearly a flavored tobacco.

On September 22, 2009 a ban on cigarettes containing certain characterizing flavors went into effect. The ban, authorized by the new Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, is part of a national effort by FDA to reduce smoking in America.

FDA’s ban on candy and fruit-flavored cigarettes highlights the importance of reducing the number of children who start to smoke, and who become addicted to dangerous tobacco products. FDA is also examining options for regulating both menthol cigarettes and flavored tobacco products other than cigarettes.

Source FDA:

[Link: www.fda.gov...]

164 Liberal Classic  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:34:21am

re: #159 idioma

“We’ve circled the wagons defending the word ‘marriage,’ ” said Matt Barber, a leader in Virginia’s conservative “Liberty Council.”

“We need to highlight the fact that homosexual behavior will always be destructive, wrong and dangerous. It’s time for fighting back against homosexual behavior.”

What exactly is it about homosexuality that makes conservative troglodytes like this so worried?

What are they afraid of?

Can anyone explain this to me?

It's the fear that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time.

165 erraticsphinx  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:36:02am

re: #164 Liberal Classic

Perfect summary.

166 idioma  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:36:55am

re: #161 theheat

Let's assume all of their fears come true: Gays get married, a portion of the population grows up in homes with two dads, or two moms. Americans become generally tolerant of their citizens.

How does this scenario stop Christians from being Christians?! Christians would still be able to go to church, raise kids, and be utterly traditional, and heteronormative people. The only difference: they'd no longer be coddled for their bigotry.

We went through the same thing 50 years ago in this country. It used to be perfectly normal for members of congress to drive elements of fear by discussing "the negro element". We would not tolerate that today. So instead we have a proxy racist movement (teabaggers) and open homophobia.

But WHY is being gay such a threat to Christians?

167 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:37:52am

re: #66 Ray in TX

Trying to make my way through the thread:

It's going to become more of an issue as moderates continue their flight into the Democratic party. As some point, the Dems could co-opt enough of the core conservative values that a rebuilding a viable conservative party becomes exceedingly difficult.

Ray - I suspect you are correct that moderates are crossing into the Dem party. But if you have research showing this is true, we would like to see it, if you can link to it, please.

The whole libertarian notion of "government staying out of your personal life" is now almost a core principle of the Dems, directly as a response to the social conservative overreach. I see them making a lot of gains in foreign policy as well.

I'm gonna refer you to #71 as regards your statement that the Dems have as a "core principle" the notion of staying out of a person's personal life.
re: #71 SixDegrees

Perhaps at some point in the past. The current Liberal penchant to reach for government solutions to all problems, however, is certainly not in sync with such an outlook. Attempts to exert government oversight over the smallest details of individuals lives - banning transfats, taxing soda and gasoline in order to achieve perceived health and environmental ends, takings of property without compensation and rendering the value of property worthless in the name of conservation are examples that leap easily to mind, among many others.

168 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:41:43am

an in-late drive-by post:

Who says 'Salafism' is strictly an Islamist concept?

169 idioma  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:44:38am

re: #164 Liberal Classic

It's the fear that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time.

Ahh, that. Thanks for clarifying.

170 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:45:43am

re: #166 idioma

Let's assume all of their fears come true: Gays get married, a portion of the population grows up in homes with two dads, or two moms. Americans become generally tolerant of their citizens.

How does this scenario stop Christians from being Christians?! Christians would still be able to go to church, raise kids, and be utterly traditional, and heteronormative people. The only difference: they'd no longer be coddled for their bigotry.

We went through the same thing 50 years ago in this country. It used to be perfectly normal for members of congress to drive elements of fear by discussing "the negro element". We would not tolerate that today. So instead we have a proxy racist movement (teabaggers) and open homophobia.

But WHY is being gay such a threat to Christians?

Many Christians aren't threatened by the fact of homosexuality.

But many Christians (and those of other faiths as well) view marriage as a religious sacramental bond between a man and a woman.

What I would prefer would be to see the state getting out of the "marriage" business altogether, leaving it to churches to peform marriages, while the state would approve or record or whatever, some sort of "civil" agreement between the parties.

171 idioma  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:06:41pm

re: #170 reine.de.tout

Many Christians aren't threatened by the fact of homosexuality.

But many Christians (and those of other faiths as well) view marriage as a religious sacramental bond between a man and a woman.

What I would prefer would be to see the state getting out of the "marriage" business altogether, leaving it to churches to peform marriages, while the state would approve or record or whatever, some sort of "civil" agreement between the parties.

In name only you are suggesting nothing new. I'm an atheist, if I were to marry my partner (also an atheist) it would not be performed in a church. The state would still issue us a "certificate" but there would be nothing even remotely religious about it. If gay marriage was universal to all 50 states, I'd imagine may homosexuals would choose a similar option - given how intolerant most religions are on this matter.

If, by contrast my partner and I were to get married in a church, we would still have to go to a local court to be issued a certificate.

So we're right back to square one. Even if a religion defined marriage, it would ONLY be defined for the followers of that particular denomination, and would have absolutely no relevance to anyone outside of there following.

172 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:24:01pm

The fact that these people are as riled up about witchcraft as they are about gay people really tells you all you need to know. WITCHCRAFT.

Next up, Gloria Slorgendoogle from the Cathode Foundation will give a talk on how the television must be banned from America because it is a sorcerous talisman that contains enchanted minstrels.

173 borgcube  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:30:34pm

I recently had a conversation with a guy I respect very much. He's extremely bright, well educated, an all around decent guy with a great career, etc.

In one of our recent conversations, politics came up. I must have hit all of the right buttons or something because all of a sudden he started talking about Huckabee, etc. Uh oh. And then it happened, the 6000 year old Earth stuff.

Oh no. So, I had to stop him and tell him that I was not a member of the flock. He was really puzzled. I finally had a conversation with one of these people. It's true, they are completely ill-prepared to deal with someone who shares most or maybe even all of their political views but goes off the ranch by not only not buying into the young Earth hooey, or even worse, someone who does not subscribe to a belief in God either.

He was still cordial and we're still friends and associates, but I can tell that he's not going to confide in me anymore and open up about sensitive issues, political or otherwise.

I just don't get it. Why does it have to be "all or nothing" with these people, right or left?

174 Gang of One  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:38:02pm

The Republican party has left me. Guess that makes me, what, an independent?

175 idioma  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:39:22pm

Scarborough declares himself neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but a “Christocrat,” who believes the US Constitution was a “godly document,” and the Bible is intended to “direct the affairs of all of mankind.” Then he turns his increasingly hysterical attention toward Planned Parenthood, calling it a “demonic” organization that “slaughters innocent unborn children.” Homosexuals are “sodomites,” he shrieks, promoted by the “minions” of the Obama administration who are planning to put Christians in jail and ban the Bible.

How would that speech sound in Arabic?

176 Gang of One  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:40:29pm

re: #175 idioma


How would that speech sound in Arabic?

Just as loathsome and frightening.

177 tradewind  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:05:08pm

re: #66 Ray in TX

The whole libertarian notion of "government staying out of your personal life" is now almost a core principle of the Dems,


Nothing could be further from the truth. Democrat lawmakers, on the contrary, feel especially empowered to dictate how you must or must not eat, drink, smoke, drive, shop, and speak... just don't ever question the way they live.

178 filetandrelease  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:07:41pm

This is so depressing. A life long Republican and no where to turn. We need a strong leader who can speak truth to this foolishness. Or we need a third party. And I need a beer.

179 PatriotLizardoid  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:09:19pm

re: #159 idioma

For quite awhile some years back we went to a pretty hardcore church, so much so that we actually walked out during a demonstration of Noah's "global flood". There were more than a few uncomfortable moments until we finally realized that it, um, wasn't for us.

The super arch-fundamentalists that I have known (maybe about 4) believe that society's acceptance of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle will somehow, convert and/or abuse their children, thereby condemning the children they work so hard to shelter (e.g. raise into people just like themselves) to "H.E. double hockey-sticks".

Whenever this topic comes up for the "fundamentalist" it always seems to go to the "homosexual lobby" and public schooling, then they go into the whole home school thing..

So yeah, it's fear, irrational and multi-faceted. Amplified by their isolation from what they fear.

180 idioma  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:24:34pm

re: #179 PatriotLizardoid

The super arch-fundamentalists that I have known (maybe about 4) believe that society's acceptance of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle will somehow, convert and/or abuse their children, thereby condemning the children they work so hard to shelter (e.g. raise into people just like themselves) to "H.E. double hockey-sticks".

Whenever this topic comes up for the "fundamentalist" it always seems to go to the "homosexual lobby" and public schooling, then they go into the whole home school thing..

So yeah, it's fear, irrational and multi-faceted. Amplified by their isolation from what they fear.

This fear is laughable, when considering how common child abuse is at the hands of Church leadership.

I'm really getting sick of fundamentalist demanding everyone else deliver them from temptation.

You cannot demand the government stay out of your personal life on Monday, and then on Sunday demand that the government legislate your brand of morality.

Does not compute.

Garbage in Garbage OIH$HJFKDJHF7iuh7aifklg ilGI7ghiJjluhk2j4niughmdnaSD

181 PatriotLizardoid  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:44:19pm

re: #180 idioma

I agree. But there you have it. And unfortunately it is something that gets amplified by the isolationism and the echo chamber.

182 Flame Fin Tomini Tang  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:53:34pm

What's scary about this stuff is that there is no communication possible. An example was the recently departed Radcap who could write sentences with big words, but couldn't construct anything other than recursive self validating arguments.

Radcap can be shown the door of LGF, but where are these people to go?
NW Pakistan?//

183 wittymoniker  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 3:17:23pm

re: #178 filetandrelease

This is so depressing. A life long Republican and no where to turn. We need a strong leader who can speak truth to this foolishness. Or we need a third party. And I need a beer.

Why don't we just step back and let the wingnuts finish burning the GOP to the ground. Then the rest of us can come back and rebuild it. This time we make the unbalanced kids sit in the back.

184 Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaire  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 3:24:44pm

re: #179 PatriotLizardoid

For quite awhile some years back we went to a pretty hardcore church, so much so that we actually walked out during a demonstration of Noah's "global flood".

Do tell...?

185 cgn38navy  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 3:39:53pm

re: #166 idioma
I don't know if you want a serious answer and I can't speak for everyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality as a "protected minority" I can only speak for myself. I have friends and relatives who are homosexual, and many seem to be constantly fighting a self destructive tendency. I have normal friends (I detest the use of hetronormal btw, it's such a backhanded attempt to normalize homosexuality. Wikipedia - In behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average. No denying, homosexuals are a significant deviation from the average.) who are also fighting the same tendencies(self destruction) but in general straight people seem to be more well adjusted (at least on the surface).

I don't know if I agree with the assumption that homosexuality isn't a problem. I just don't know. I think the jury is still out. I'm not trying to offend, but trying to follow a rational line of thought. My apologies in advance to those offended by my reasoning. Why is homosexuality not a problem but bestiality is? Is it only because of consent? Not in my opinion. What about all of the other -alities and -phelias out there? Why can't we discuss sexual proclivity as a biological and/or psychological issue? In any other area, this type of behavior deviance from the norm would be called what it is, but instead of investigating to find out if it something that even needs to be cured, you're called a bigot if you express any challenge to the pro gay rights movement.

My friends and my relatives will always be my friends and relatives, and I love them, but I am concerned about them, because I think there is a problem there. I don't know how to properly address it (and neither does anyone else apparently), but pretending it isn't there isn't going to make it go away.

I have come to an uncomfortable paradox of positions on homosexuality. There is undeniable need for equality and equal rights under the law, but I am not sure they merit recognition because of their sexual proclivities. I love the campyness and flamboyance of some of my friends but I am uncomfortable picturing the physical acts which is the subtext of my laughter and enjoyment. I have decided that I am against gay marriage, but pro civil union. This is going to open a tremendous can of worms legally but it is the only fair solution that I see. I can only speak for myself, but judging from the polls, I think I'm somewhere in the center on this.

Hope this post doesn't get me banned. Thanks in advance for reading the whole thing sorry to be so long winded.

186 idioma  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 3:50:59pm

re: #181 PatriotLizardoid

I agree. But there you have it. And unfortunately it is something that gets amplified by the isolationism and the echo chamber.

Isolationism = rectangle states.
Echo Chamber = Fox News.

187 wittymoniker  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 4:02:06pm

re: #185 cgn38navy

No denying, homosexuals are a significant deviation from the average.) who are also fighting the same tendencies(self destruction) but in general straight people seem to be more well adjusted (at least on the surface).

I don't know if I agree with the assumption that homosexuality isn't a problem. I just don't know. I think the jury is still out. I'm not trying to offend, but trying to follow a rational line of thought. My apologies in advance to those offended by my reasoning. Why is homosexuality not a problem but bestiality is? Is it only because of consent? Not in my opinion. What about all of the other -alities and -phelias out there? Why can't we discuss sexual proclivity as a biological and/or psychological issue? In any other area, this type of behavior deviance from the norm would be called what it is, but instead of investigating to find out if it something that even needs to be cured, you're called a bigot if you express any challenge to the pro gay rights movement.

So your problem with homosexuality is it deviates fromt the norm?

Must assimilate

188 Salamantis  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 4:12:11pm

re: #187 wittymoniker

So your problem with homosexuality is it deviates fromt the norm?

Must assimilate

Do we do a global count to ascertain which races deviate from the norm? Or which sex?

189 idioma  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 4:29:33pm

re: #185 cgn38navy

First, I appreciate your sensitivity on this matter. Most people decide to start their conversations by crying out ad hominem attacks. I don't believe that such tendencies contribute to the dialog.

Second. I think that the primary contributing factor to homosexuality, (or any deviation from heteronormal) is that of nature. This argument is supported by the vast array of species (including complex mammals) which deviate. [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

The religious argument (religions are selective about Naturalism, depending on whether or not a naturalist approach favors their dogma) states that homosexuality is "unnatural" yet, we find that the majority of prolific species are successful breeders, not because of their strong tendency to a nuclear family, but instead because of their opportunistic sexuality.

That is to say: most animals are successful because they screw anything that gives them a chance.

Human success does not depend on our ability to dominate others through sex or violence, and certainly human morality does not have a good exchange rate into the animal kingdom. I do not know of any gay rights advocates that would contradict that argument either.

You mentioned the moral equivalence issue with bestiality, yet I conclude you already have reached your answer - the difference is consent.

You mentioned "curing" homosexuality as a potential remedy, but that does not align with what we know about sexuality in humans.

Could you be "cured" of your heterosexuality? Do you think strong community and prayer would ever make you completely comfortable with having sex with someone of the same gender?

Are you really worried about someone "turning you gay"?

[Link: thewildreed.blogspot.com...]

Even if you are, it still doesn't address a fundamental question: What's wrong with being gay?

I'm a heterosexual in a committed relationship, with very low probability of procreation. I'm just not very likely to have kids. Inside of this relationship vacuum, am I hurting society? Would it matter if my partner happened to be a man instead of a woman?

We are unmarried, and as such face numerous disadvantages for remaining in our legal status. But, much like you, I know gay people that I care about a great deal, it seems hardly fair that I should indulge in societal privileges that they are denied.

"...but I am uncomfortable picturing the physical acts which is the subtext of my laughter and enjoyment..."

I'm not comfortable picturing the physical aspect of my parents sexuality, but I accept their right to be married to each other.

There are probably a lot of things that you are not comfortable with picturing, this does not have any bearing on their merits of justice either.

"I have decided that I am against gay marriage, but pro civil union."

Any argument presented on this premise could be equally applied to the issue of interracial marriage; and it would be equally absurd.

Why should we have a different category for marriage? Would that not encourage policy that would essentially reflect a "separate but equal" approach? Mutual respect cannot realistically be expected so long as we make some in our society a lower class of citizen.

190 Hawaii69  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 4:36:03pm

re: #178 filetandrelease

This is so depressing. A life long Republican and no where to turn. We need a strong leader who can speak truth to this foolishness. Or we need a third party. And I need a beer.


I suggest this:

I-M-N-O-T-H-I-N
I-M-N-O-T-H-I-N
I'm nothing'
I'm nothin'
Are you a republican or a democrat?
A liberal fascist full of crap?
I'm nothin' !
I'm nothin' !
Somebody somewhere might be something
But everybody everywhere
Knows that I'm nothin!
Politics and dirty tricks
I got no time for stones and sticks
Politics and dirty tricks
I got no time I'm chasing chicks
I'm nothin' !
I'm nothin' !
Somebody somewhere might be something
But everybody everywhere
Knows that I'm nothing !
I'm nothing, but I'm not proud
'Cause being nothing...it's not allowed
Are you a gay or are you straight?
Do you believe in love?
Or do you believe in hate?
I'm nothin' !
I'm nothin' !
Somebody somewhere said he was something
But to everybody everywhere
I'm saying I'm nothing !
I'm nothing. I'm like a cloud
I'm free to be alone in a crowd
What's your reality. It's not real to me
What's your anomaly. It is my destiny
I-M-N-O-T-H-I-N
I-M-N-O-T-H-I-N
I'm nothin'
Nothin'
Nothin'
I'm nothing now and I'll be nothing when
This nothing world has it's nothing end

-The Violent Femmes, "I'm Nothin"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iPkce0NuHo

191 theheat  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 5:08:04pm

re: #163 Liberal Classic

Most clove cigarettes are imported from Indonesia. They aren't even made here in the States, and they are more expensive than any other cigarette, which probably means "the children" aren't going to buy them. Also, the majority of cigarette sales across the nation are not favored tobacco, so I doubt there is any proof whatsoever that flavored tobaccos lure children into smoking, and certainly is not what they continue to smoke, if they smoke. Their rationale holds no water.

I'm tired of being protected from my own vices with some bullshit story. If I want to eat Capt'n Crunch drenched in pancake syrup, followed with a nice clove cigarette, that's my choice. I don't appreciate normally legal substances being denied because some gd asshat doesn't approve of them.

Maybe they still have them in Canada and I can smuggle them across the border. What a sad state of affairs this has become, where smoking makes you a freakin' outlaw. It's bullshit.

192 theheat  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 5:16:35pm

re: #166 idioma

But WHY is being gay such a threat to Christians?

Most of the Christians I know have been fed scripture from the time they were tots, so they believe being gay is a sin. (God says so, they keep telling me.) They've heard their parents tell them, their church, their church friends - there has never been anything to refute this their entire lives. Couple that with the stigma homophobes have, and there is a lot of anti-gay sentiment out there.

I don't believe being gay is a sin. I don't see any reasons gays should not be able to marry or have children. But I'm an atheist, and a smoker. And I may soon become a clove cigarette smuggler, the way things are looking. But in my eye, hate and discrimination against gays is no different than hating someone because of the color of their skin. And I don't give a shit if someone thinks God told them so, because I don't care much about that whole thing, either. They might as well tell me their parakeet told them to hate or discriminate against gays, it holds as much water to me.

193 Claire  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 5:43:18pm

So the alternatives to being gay are: Being alone your whole life, never getting to bond and care for another human being because you are scared that everybody you know would shun you if they found out. Or marrying somebody of the opposite sex you are not fundamentally attracted to and putting them and any children through the betrayal and the aftermath, 'cause there always is one. They need to "fight" homosexuality, and what, try to force people into one of these two scenarios? How utterly stupid.

194 Etaoin Shrdlu  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 6:39:02pm

"What the heck do you call an act like that?!?"

"The Christocrats"

195 e  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 6:40:45pm

We need an extreme moderate party, and we need it now.

196 Eclectic Infidel  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 6:51:18pm

re: #170 reine.de.tout


What I would prefer would be to see the state getting out of the "marriage" business altogether, leaving it to churches to peform marriages, while the state would approve or record or whatever, some sort of "civil" agreement between the parties.

I've always been on board with this, and it makes perfect sense. Have your ceremony as you see fit (church, city hall, whatever), write up your own contract and record/notarize it in the county in which you reside. Done deal. I don't think the anti-gay crowd would be willing to agree to this though - not that they should be given a say in it anyway, given that it would serve everyone equally.

197 idioma  Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:01:07pm

re: #196 eclectic infidel

I've always been on board with this, and it makes perfect sense. Have your ceremony as you see fit (church, city hall, whatever), write up your own contract and record/notarize it in the county in which you reside. Done deal. I don't think the anti-gay crowd would be willing to agree to this though - not that they should be given a say in it anyway, given that it would serve everyone equally.

Already, Marriage Certificates are issued by the county/state level. Gay rights activist couldn't give two shites whether or not the Catholic church will marry two guys. The "Civil Union Approach" is a red herring designed to create the appearance that gays are intolerant.

And that's funny.

198 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 8:22:20am

Oh man. I thought things were bad when I left the party a few years ago. The word "independent" just is not adequate. It seems there is no longer a party for the old school fiscal/gov conservative. The Libertarian party is essentially ignored. Often for good reason.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

Name:

Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

Turn off ads by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day, our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...


► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

A veritable buzzsaw of facts.

TwitterFacebook
LGF Pages
Recent Pages

MikeySDCA
Czech Pride in Jan Kubis, Killer of Reinhard Heydrich
26 minutes ago
Views: 14 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
'I Was Looking Forward to a Quiet Old Age': Instead, Etta Shiber, Helped Smuggle Stranded Allied Soldiers To Freedom
13 hours, 20 minutes ago
Views: 165 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 1

Daniel Ballard
Late Afternoon Light-Kalanchoe
21 hours, 1 minute ago
Views: 150 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

Eclectic Infidel
City College of San Francisco Budget Update
21 hours, 53 minutes ago
Views: 165 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Michael McBacon
Kansas governor signs 'Shariah bill' to ban Islamic law
1 day, 2 hours ago
Views: 296 • Comments: 7
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 6

Aigle
National Geographic Traveler Veers Off Track
2 days, 2 hours ago
Views: 650 • Comments: 11
Tweets: 23 • Rating: -7

MichaelJ
Apple TV Slated to Debut in December?
2 days, 3 hours ago
Views: 260 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Ascher
Israeli Who Saved Turk on Everest: You Never Abandon a Friend - Israel News, Ynetnews
2 days, 4 hours ago
Views: 331 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4

Haywood Jabloeme
The Harrassment of Patterico & Its Roots in Left-Wing Activism
2 days, 5 hours ago
Views: 567 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4

Curt
Brian Banks: (Video) Falsely accused of rape speaks out
2 days, 7 hours ago
Views: 306 • Comments: 3
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

 Frank says:

I want a garden!