Religious Right Bails on CPAC (or, Fear of a Gay Planet)

Wingnuts • Views: 21,252

The Internet black hole of far right theocratic craziness known as World Net Daily is celebrating today because religious fundamentalists are abandoning CPAC out of fear of a gay planet.

Two of the nation’s premier moral issues organizations, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, are refusing to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in February because a homosexual activist group, GOProud, has been invited.

“We’ve been very involved in CPAC for over a decade and have managed a couple of popular sessions. However, we will no longer be involved with CPAC because of the organization’s financial mismanagement and movement away from conservative principles,” said Tom McClusky, senior vice president for FRC Action.

“CWA has decided not to participate in part because of GOProud,” CWA President Penny Nance told WND.

FRC and CWA join the American Principles Project, American Values, Capital Research Center, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage in withdrawing from CPAC. In November, APP organized a boycott of CPAC over the participation of GOProud.

It’s probably smart for them to bail out, before teh ghey gets all over them and they mutate into prancing Nancy-boys who frequent public restrooms and gym showers.

Don’t worry, though — there’s still plenty of craziness coming to next year’s CPAC, starting with the return of the John Birch Society (for the second year in a row), who will be listed as an “affiliate” with two large display booths: The John Birch Society to attend CPAC 2011 as affiliate. (Google cache link to hate site.)

Jump to bottom

135 comments
1 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:30:57am

A brand-spanking new thread!

2 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:31:54am

Good for CPAC.

3 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:32:00am

What are they so damn scared of?

4 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:32:47am

re: #3 Obdicut

What are they so damn scared of?

being recognized in the bathroom.

5 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:34:06am

re: #3 Obdicut

What are they so damn scared of?

What they’re really afraid of: they sense that their unearned power over people’s lives is slipping away, and they’re too stupid and greedy to understand why. So they react with hatred and fear. Pretty basic.

6 Bob Levin  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:34:37am

That’s the beauty of ‘pure’ ideology. It breaks into factions before it acquires power. Heh.

7 Alexzander  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:35:19am

re: #3 Obdicut

What are they so damn scared of?

Perhaps the thought of seeing other individuals live happy liberated lives while they boil with suppressed rage and desire?

8 Alexzander  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:37:13am

re: #4 ggt

being recognized in the bathroom.

Or even worse, recognizing themselves in the bathroom.

9 BishopX  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:38:05am

Man, it’s not often that I wish there were more openly gay GOP members out there, but this seems to be one of those days.

10 Tumulus11  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:38:06am

. Possible typo on the type of washrooms that the Nancy-boys frequent.

11 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:38:37am

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

12 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:40:51am

re: #9 BishopX

Man, it’s not often that I wish there were more openly gay GOP members out there, but this seems to be one of those days.

Of course you wouldn’t, else that wouldn’t be an issue for the left to exploit. Guess what, I’d rather see the gay community be welcomed in all areas of the public forum, left or right or otherwise, and the whole sexual orientation issue disappear.

13 Political Atheist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:41:40am

re: #10 Tumulus11

Funny though…

14 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:44:20am

re: #12 Walter L. Newton

Of course you wouldn’t, else that wouldn’t be an issue for the left to exploit.

What? You’re seriously saying that the ‘left’ are the ones perpetrating the culture war on the issue of homosexuality?

Please.

15 albusteve  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:44:29am

re: #12 Walter L. Newton

Of course you wouldn’t, else that wouldn’t be an issue for the left to exploit. Guess what, I’d rather see the gay community be welcomed in all areas of the public forum, left or right or otherwise, and the whole sexual orientation issue disappear.

exactly…politicizing the thing is the most despicable…I hate it when that happens…if not gays, then who?….you for some reason?

16 PhillyPretzel  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:44:45am

Whether it be GOProud or Log Cabin Republicans they should be included because the Republican Party needs all the help they can get. It does not matter where a good idea comes from.

17 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:47:52am

re: #16 PhillyPretzel

And I know many gay people who are quite fiscally conservative. They’re small-business owners, fiscally responsible solid middle-class citizens.

18 PhillyPretzel  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:49:04am

re: #17 Obdicut
Yes. And that makes a good breeding ground for great ideas.

19 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:56:37am

re: #18 PhillyPretzel

It’s kind of amazing how much energy the modern ‘conservative’ movement has put into shoving away groups that would make natural allies for them. Hispanics, gays, Muslims.

20 PhillyPretzel  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:57:30am

re: #19 Obdicut
And do not forget those of the Jewish faith. :)

21 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:58:30am

re: #17 Obdicut

And I know many gay people who are quite fiscally conservative. They’re small-business owners, fiscally responsible solid middle-class citizens.

but some SoCons are so intent on seeing all gays as evil enemies intend on shredding America’s moral fabric that they turn on people who should be their allies. I’m glad CPAC is holding firm on this. Even if attendance is only half of what it was last year, the percentage of sane people will be much higher. Which will allow CPAC to actually work to get some ideas and policy proposals generated. Actual work on governance, what a concept.

22 Political Atheist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:00:30am

re: #19 Obdicut

When California Republicans were fighting excessive gun control laws, with all kinds of legal jurisdictional preemption’s and constitutional issues, the Log Cabins were a huge help. Some of the most egregious attempts at discouraging gun ownership by the law abiding were stopped.

23 Stan the Demanded Plan  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:01:41am

re: #14 Obdicut

What? You’re seriously saying that the ‘left’ are the ones perpetrating the culture war on the issue of homosexuality?

Please.

Yeah, I recall seeing all the time the left leaning lizards typing Bwaney Frank.

/ Right.

(remember those shitty days friends?)

24 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:02:04am

Financial issues are a concern of EVERYONE, yet the social issues are used successfully as a smokescreen to get votes.

It’s very frustrating.

25 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:02:25am

Everyone, if you could please go back to the last thread and report # 776. Troll “mikehaas82” just turned abusive towards Charles.

26 Kronocide  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:02:47am

My guilty pleasure for leaving on mindless TV is ‘Locked Up.’

Last night was Colorado: they were profiling 3 homo/transexual immates. One of them was named Royanne, effimate and working on a sex change operation. He (actually she now) was asked about harassment.

“Yeah, I get harassed a lot. But the guys who dish it out the worst are also most likely to try and have sex with me in secret.”

Says a lot to me.

27 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:05:28am

re: #26 BigPapa

My guilty pleasure for leaving on mindless TV is ‘Locked Up.’

Last night was Colorado: they were profiling 3 homo/transexual immates. One of them was named Royanne, effimate and working on a sex change operation. He (actually she now) was asked about harassment.

“Yeah, I get harassed a lot. But the guys who dish it out the worst are also most likely to try and have sex with me in secret.”

Says a lot to me.

The gentlemen (?) doth protest too much?

28 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:07:14am

re: #27 ggt

The gentlemen (?) doth protest too much?

I’m trying to imagine going through a MtF transition in a men’s jail, and frankly, my mind is huddled screaming in the corner. Good God.

29 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:08:10am

re: #28 SanFranciscoZionist

I’m trying to imagine going through a MtF transition in a men’s jail, and frankly, my mind is huddled screaming in the corner. Good God.

going thru that transition at all. I feel for those with gender identity issues, I have no concept of what they are going thru.

30 Kronocide  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:08:30am

re: #27 ggt

The gentlemen (?) doth protest too much?

Well, everybody in prison A) is a victim and B) didn’t do it, or it wasn’t that bad.

The point was that those who are most vicious to gays are also most likely to engage in gay sex.

31 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:09:58am

re: #30 BigPapa

Well, everybody in prison A) is a victim and B) didn’t do it, or it wasn’t that bad.

The point was that those who are most vicious to gays are also most likely to engage in gay sex.

I was trying to point out that those that defend their innocence the loudest are usually the guilty.

32 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:10:50am

re: #12 Walter L. Newton

Are suggesting that it’s the left’s fault that most GLBT people don’t feel comfortable with the GOP or the conservative movement? Last time I checked they created that problem on their own. Pointing out that the GOP has a 40 year history of throwing minority groups under the bus in order to appeal to people who hate and fear them isn’t exploitation. And those groups, be they gays, blacks, Hispanics, etc don’t even need it to be pointed out. We’re smart enough to figure it out on our own. We just look and listen. If the right keeps blaming it’s problems with minorities of virtually every kind on “exploitation by the left”, you will never fix the problem.

33 Kragar  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:12:21am

I’d rather have a gay neighbor than a fundamentalist neighbor.

The more these assholes self-isolate themselves, the better.

34 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:13:25am

re: #32 moderatelyradicalliberal

Are suggesting that it’s the left’s fault that most GLBT people don’t feel comfortable with the GOP or the conservative movement? Last time I checked they created that problem on their own. Pointing out that the GOP has a 40 year history of throwing minority groups under the bus in order to appeal to people who hate and fear them isn’t exploitation. And those groups, be they gays, blacks, Hispanics, etc don’t even need it to be pointed out. We’re smart enough to figure it out on our own. We just look and listen. If the right keeps blaming it’s problems with minorities of virtually every kind on “exploitation by the left”, you will never fix the problem.

In my perfect world …

Those who would otherwise identify with the Republican Party would fight harder for their right to be there or start a third party instead of joining the Democratic Party.

We need a viable multi-party system in this country. I’m very glad CPAC made this move.

35 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:13:28am

OK, going completely off-topic now, I’m reading a ‘Craziest and Favorite Celebrity Baby Names’ on Yahoo! (I’m on VACATION!)

The craziest of the year is ‘Buddy Bear Maurice’, which I agree is a weird thing to saddle a child with, and I also agree that ‘Grace Margaret’, ‘Harper Grace’, and ‘Olivia Marie’ are lovely names.

But can someone explain to me why “Cosima Violet” ends up on ‘Crazy’, while ‘Aviana Olea’ is a ‘Favorite’? Also, they put chef-lady Padma Lakshmi’s daughter’s name on the ‘crazy’ list. Folks, she’s a Hindu. Naming the little girl ‘Krishna Thea’ was pretty normal, given that context.

Hmph.

Yahoos!

36 Political Atheist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:14:18am

re: #35 SanFranciscoZionist

Hi
We both are on vacation. A rainy vacation today but relaxing anyway.

37 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:15:49am

re: #19 Obdicut

Why is it surprising? They did it to black people first. We don’t like abortion or taxes. We distrust the government and go to church all the time. We were natural allies too. This is a fairly consistent pattern over 40 years. When the GOP has the opportunity to appeal to white populist sentiment or appeal to minority groups, they chose the former every time. It’s it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. They have gone from the Southern Strategy with blacks to the Southwestern Strategy with Latinos.

38 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:16:00am

re: #35 SanFranciscoZionist

I’d just like to mention my friend Tamara “Kaew” Chattanattadattarang.

39 wrenchwench  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:17:17am

re: #38 Obdicut

I’d just like to mention my friend Tamara “Kaew” Chattanattadattarang.

That name rings a bell.

/

40 jaunte  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:17:19am

re: #38 Obdicut

Sounds like she’d be great as a morning show host in Chattanooga.

41 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:17:53am

re: #37 moderatelyradicalliberal

Why is it surprising? They did it to black people first. We don’t like abortion or taxes. We distrust the government and go to church all the time. We were natural allies too. This is a fairly consistent pattern over 40 years. When the GOP has the opportunity to appeal to white populist sentiment or appeal to minority groups, they chose the former every time. It’s it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. They have gone from the Southern Strategy with blacks to the Southwestern Strategy with Latinos.

I’ve noticed that too. There is a real disconnect on perception within the party.

42 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:17:56am

re: #38 Obdicut

I’d just like to mention my friend Tamara “Kaew” Chattanattadattarang.

Over at the source website, they’ve also put ‘Gideon Scott’, ‘Abel James’ and ‘Vida’ as Worst Celebrity Baby Names.

43 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:18:56am

re: #34 ggt

In my perfect world …

Those who would otherwise identify with the Republican Party would fight harder for their right to be there or start a third party instead of joining the Democratic Party.

We need a viable multi-party system in this country. I’m very glad CPAC made this move.

I wouldn’t be too quick to applaud CPAC. We haven’t seen yet if this boycott will have an effect. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if GOProud gets tossed out. The Family Research Council is a huge player in the modern conservative movement.

44 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:21:30am

re: #37 moderatelyradicalliberal

Why is it surprising? They did it to black people first. We don’t like abortion or taxes. We distrust the government and go to church all the time. We were natural allies too. This is a fairly consistent pattern over 40 years. When the GOP has the opportunity to appeal to white populist sentiment or appeal to minority groups, they chose the former every time. It’s it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. They have gone from the Southern Strategy with blacks to the Southwestern Strategy with Latinos.

It doesn’t help that the women of the GOP are sometimes the most radical. I have a brain fart everytime I try to understand their understanding of women’s issues.

It’s as if they have NO understanding of the reality that the perfect marriage and perfect family life is a) not reality for most women and b) not what many women want.

45 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:21:34am

re: #43 Charles

I wouldn’t be too quick to applaud CPAC. We haven’t seen yet if this boycott will have an effect. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if GOProud gets tossed out. The Family Research Council is a huge player in the modern conservative movement.

I don’t think they can toss GOPround without looking like overtly bigoted assholes. And doing that would have detrimental effects on the elected officials and party honchos who speak at CPAC. So I think they likely stand their ground.

46 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:22:26am

re: #43 Charles

I wouldn’t be too quick to applaud CPAC. We haven’t seen yet if this boycott will have an effect. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if GOProud gets tossed out. The Family Research Council is a huge player in the modern conservative movement.

I’m trying to be positive. As I said, a One-Party system would not be good for this country. Keeping my fingers crossed.

47 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:23:25am

re: #45 Dark_Falcon

I don’t think they can toss GOPround without looking like overtly bigoted assholes. And doing that would have detrimental effects on the elected officials and party honchos who speak at CPAC. So I think they likely stand their ground.

Maybe the more support they get on this issue, the stronger they’ll feel in defending it.

48 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:24:09am

re: #45 Dark_Falcon

I don’t think they can toss GOPround without looking like overtly bigoted assholes. And doing that would have detrimental effects on the elected officials and party honchos who speak at CPAC. So I think they likely stand their ground.

Frankly, the fact the John Birch Society is back again this year bigger than ever already makes CPAC look like overtly bigoted assholes. I don’t think the organizers care much about that. In past years, openly racist organizations like the Council of Conservative Citizens have attended CPAC.

49 prairiefire  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:25:50am

re: #38 Obdicut

I’d just like to mention my friend Tamara “Kaew” Chattanattadattarang.

I’m guessing that is a Thai last name.

50 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:26:14am

re: #34 ggt

I’m glad they made this move as well. Didn’t they invite GOProud last year as well?

51 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:26:51am

re: #48 Charles

Frankly, the fact the John Birch Society is back again this year bigger than ever already makes CPAC look like overtly bigoted assholes. I don’t think the organizers care much about that. In past years, openly racist organizations like the Council of Conservative Citizens have attended CPAC.

The “conservatives” I know here in the North really don’t get it. To them, “conservative” and “racist/fundamentalist/whacko” aren’t in the same world. As I said, there is a real disconnect in perception and the whako’s are taking full advantage of it.

52 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:27:21am

re: #43 Charles

I thought GOProud was at the last CPAC meeting?

53 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:27:28am

re: #50 moderatelyradicalliberal

I’m glad they made this move as well. Didn’t they invite GOProud last year as well?

Honestly, I didn’t pay attention last year. I took a self-imposed time-out.

54 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:29:12am

Maybe the Republican Party will die out and the Democrats will split into two on fiscal issues… .

55 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:30:02am

re: #49 prairiefire

Yep.

56 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:30:56am

re: #53 ggt

I remember there being some fuss about it, but I can’t recall the exact details. I do remember a video of a member of GOProud having it out with some guy who wasn’t happy about them being there. He basically told him we’re here, we’re queer, so get over it.

57 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:31:21am

re: #56 moderatelyradicalliberal

I remember there being some fuss about it, but I can’t recall the exact details. I do remember a video of a member of GOProud having it out with some guy who wasn’t happy about them being there. He basically told him we’re here, we’re queer, so get over it.

Good.

58 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:32:31am

CHARLES

A heads up

A steaming pile was left for you on #789 of the previous thread!

59 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:33:28am

re: #3 Obdicut

What are they so damn scared of?

It’s not so simple as many of the other answers given to your question.

They’re afraid of a general move in public folkways toward dropping all the old standards and habits.

They’re afraid of Bertrand Russell.

Russell had an incredibly deep and penetrating mind. But his ideas on how to organize human society, even in his own personal life, were nonetheless impractical. They ran afoul of some aspects of human nature that are normally mercifully not much in evidence, because our current customs tend to keep those aspects in check.

Read “Logicomix” for an entertaining presentation of some of that.

They’re afraid of becoming like Britain.

Read “Our culture, or what’s left of it”, [rough version of the title] by Theodore Dalrymple, the pen name of Dr. Anthony Daniels, for an account of life amongst the [just so you don’t get the wrong idea, white] underclass of Britain. Item: he notes that the people whose homes he visited in the line of duty subsisted entirely on junk food. They simply didn’t cook. At all. Ever. As a result, they were both overweight and malnourished, and their cost of living was much higher than it need have been.

They’re afraid that their relatives and descendants will be drawn into a Weimar Republic lifestyle. Their antidote to this is a strict and uncompromising code. So it is, also, with fundamentalist Muslims. This “Weimar” lifestyle is tempting. Go ahead. Drink. Chase the ladies, or the lads, as the case may be. Live for the moment.

Fundamentalists of all stripes feel the pull of this. But they don’t see how a political liberal can partake of this in great moderation and then get back to the grindstone. They just cannot fathom how a man can not be a fundamentalist, and yet live a frugal, industrious, life of fidelity and purpose. They see much more than mere race through the lens of the one drop rule.

And so, faced with this false dichotomy, they fear that any little step away from their own strict code leads to the other end of the scale. And they see that in fact, millions of people have been drawn in to lives of anarchy and despair, chasing after the pleasures of the moment, or lapsing into a desperate and angry boredom and ennui.

The left, and the rationalist center, has a task it’s not well addressed: how does one arrange society so that these hazards are reduced, without adopting overly strict codes? Little things such as Michelle Obama’s attempt to promote exercise for children seem like a step in that direction, but a journey of miles requires thousands of steps. We’ve got a very long way to go.

60 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:33:29am

re: #58 sattv4u2

CHARLES

A heads up

A steaming pile was left for you on #789 of the previous thread!


Nevahmind,,, You got it!

61 wrenchwench  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:33:30am

re: #54 ggt

Maybe the Republican Party will die out and the Democrats will split into two on fiscal issues… .

That’s one of the most sensible possible outcomes I’ve seen. I’m going to start rooting for that.

62 prairiefire  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:33:54am

I think it will still be a number of years before the Repubs get their house sorted. A local right wing radio guy was on the air yesterday, pleading with the Tea Party to leave the social issues alone. It ain’t gonna happen.

63 prairiefire  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:34:38am

“ain’t” is flagged by spellcheck, whuuttt?

64 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:35:38am

re: #54 ggt

I doubt it. We’ve had two parties for a long time now and both have had moments when they were counted out and deemed headed for extinction. That’s why it’s so important that neither one be completely nuts, in a two party system they always have a chance of gaining power. If they manic-progressives ever took over the Democratic party, I would have to register as an independent. I had to leave Dkos a while ago because I just couldn’t take all of the “Obama must be primaried” talk. I guess they don’t remember the Carter/Kennedy fiasco.

65 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:37:07am

re: #59 lostlakehiker

They’re afraid of a general move in public folkways toward dropping all the old standards and habits.

What does this mean?

And so, faced with this false dichotomy, they fear that any little step away from their own strict code leads to the other end of the scale. And they see that in fact, millions of people have been drawn in to lives of anarchy and despair, chasing after the pleasures of the moment, or lapsing into a desperate and angry boredom and ennui.

So have people who live according to ‘old standards and habits.’ Despair, certainly, pleasure-chasing, definitely, desperate angry boredeom, absolutely.

Why aren’t you including that in your ‘analysis’?

66 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:37:41am

re: #62 prairiefire

I think it will still be a number of years before the Repubs get their house sorted. A local right wing radio guy was on the air yesterday, pleading with the Tea Party to leave the social issues alone. It ain’t gonna happen.

No shit! Yes, we are all concerned about taxes. I can’t pay anymore and not be put into a situation of needing aid. Those of us who pay our own way are (well my family, anyway) very concerned. I work retail, I see what gets purchased with MY money and I see the people who get MY money. There is a lot of waste, most of it, IMHO get’s lost drop-by-drop (dollar-by-dollar) along the way.

Stop telling people how to live and start paying attention to what happens to OUR money.

67 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:37:51am

re: #63 prairiefire

“ain’t” is flagged by spellcheck, whuuttt?

So is prairiefire!!!

68 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:38:03am

re: #62 prairiefire

It’s amazing how so many people see the TPs as a new and separate entity from the GOP. I always thought they were the most ardent base of the GOP, so of course they would be social conservatives and fake fiscal conservatives.

69 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:39:57am

re: #59 lostlakehiker

And yet, the same people who want to keep GOProud out of CPAC rail against Michelle Obama for gardening, and attack gay couples who want to get married, instead of, say, gambling and nightclubs.

It seems to me that if they’re really afraid of their descendents becoming malnourished tubby decadents, they’re picking an odd way of going about it.

70 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:40:19am

re: #66 ggt

I’m beginning to think they don’t really care what happens to our money. They just want to make sure it doesn’t pay for “sin”. Even their fiscal arguments are rooted in their social views.

71 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:41:11am

re: #65 Obdicut

What does this mean?

So have people who live according to ‘old standards and habits.’ Despair, certainly, pleasure-chasing, definitely, desperate angry boredeom, absolutely.

Why aren’t you including that in your ‘analysis’?

Didn’t you know, sitting on your ass, drinking beer and watching Dancing with Stars instead of spending those hours working a 2nd job (or A job) is your right. God forbid anyone read a book.

72 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:42:09am

re: #69 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes. They do not, in fact, “fear that any little step away from their own strict code leads to the other end of the scale.” They give great, great leniency for all sorts of lapses from that strict code. It’s absolutely wrong to say that they don’t.

Gayness is obviously given special treatment by religious conservatives. It is not a matter of ‘any little step’, at all.

73 blueraven  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:42:58am

re: #66 ggt

No shit! Yes, we are all concerned about taxes. I can’t pay anymore and not be put into a situation of needing aid. Those of us who pay our own way are (well my family, anyway) very concerned. I work retail, I see what gets purchased with MY money and I see the people who get MY money. There is a lot of waste, most of it, IMHO get’s lost drop-by-drop (dollar-by-dollar) along the way.

Stop telling people how to live and start paying attention to what happens to OUR money.

What? People are spending YOUR money on stuff…or something?

74 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:43:09am

re: #72 Obdicut

Yes. They do not, in fact, “fear that any little step away from their own strict code leads to the other end of the scale.” They give great, great leniency for all sorts of lapses from that strict code. It’s absolutely wrong to say that they don’t.

Gayness is obviously given special treatment by religious conservatives. It is not a matter of ‘any little step’, at all.

They are afraid of their own sexuality. The fact that no one really cares is terrifying to them.

75 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:43:31am

re: #72 Obdicut

Yes. They do not, in fact, “fear that any little step away from their own strict code leads to the other end of the scale.” They give great, great leniency for all sorts of lapses from that strict code. It’s absolutely wrong to say that they don’t.

Gayness is obviously given special treatment by religious conservatives. It is not a matter of ‘any little step’, at all.

I’m still waiting for the great campaign against divorce.

76 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:43:38am

re: #73 blueraven

What? People are spending YOUR money on stuff…or something?

Coke and pork rinds.

77 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:45:36am

re: #76 ggt

Coke and pork rinds.

People are spending your money on coke and pork rinds?

(I need to pay closer attention to this thread, clearly.)

78 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:45:51am

re: #76 ggt

Coke and pork rinds.

I keep mixing up which one I’m supposed to chew and which one I’m supposed to snort!

Talk about embassasment

“So Mr. SATTY,,, this is the 4th time this month you’ve come into the emergency room with a pork rind in a nostril,,”

79 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:46:20am

re: #61 wrenchwench

We’ll all be Blue Dogs and Yellow Dogs!

80 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:46:22am

re: #77 SanFranciscoZionist

People are spending your money on coke and pork rinds?

(I need to pay closer attention to this thread, clearly.)

Yes, the welfare debit card allows for coke and pork rinds in Illinois. I chalk it up to the powerful snack food lobbies.

81 wrenchwench  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:46:24am

re: #75 SanFranciscoZionist

I’m still waiting for the great campaign against divorce.

It’s always there, as “Part 2” of the campaign against gay marriage, just like birth control is the “Part 2” of the campaign against abortion. That’s one reason to never relax, even if it looks like we’re gonna win one.

82 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:46:26am

re: #78 sattv4u2

I keep mixing up which one I’m supposed to chew and which one I’m supposed to snort!

Talk about embassasment

“So Mr. SATTY,,, this is the 4th time this month you’ve come into the emergency room with a pork rind in a nostril,,”

And nice, numb, gums.

83 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:47:41am

re: #82 SanFranciscoZionist

And nice, numb, gums.

I prefer Juicy Fruit ,,,, or a nice traditional Dentine!

84 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:50:13am

And the 30 something women who (work full-time) are on their 3rd or 4th child get their formula paid for by the taxpayers. It’s not only the young and naive who “happened” to get pregnant.

It’s become a way of life. And WE are paying for it.

85 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:50:23am

re: #75 SanFranciscoZionist

WHAT!!!!!! No divorce! But then Newt would have to stay with his 3rd wife if she ever got sick like his 1st and 2nd wives. We can’t that no can we?

Good luck with your anti-divorce campaign lady, because you’re going to need it. I reserve the right to dump my future husband if he gets sick or ugly!

///

86 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:51:11am

re: #84 ggt

And the 30 something women who (work full-time) are on their 3rd or 4th child get their formula paid for by the taxpayers. It’s not only the young and naive who “happened” to get pregnant.

It’s become a way of life. And WE are paying for it.

Every race, every creed. WE have created dependency.

87 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:53:05am

re: #85 moderatelyradicalliberal

WHAT!!! No divorce! But then Newt would have to stay with his 3rd wife if she ever got sick like his 1st and 2nd wives. We can’t that no can we?

Good luck with your anti-divorce campaign lady, because you’re going to need it. I reserve the right to dump my future husband if he gets sick or ugly!

///

Bingo.

88 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:54:45am

re: #86 ggt

When I lived in Florida, there was talk about a law (don’t know if it passed) that would require any woman who sought welfare benefits to name the father of her child so that child support could be pursued or she couldn’t get the benefits. I’m normally a bleeding heart, but I kinda liked the idea. No way I’m more responsible to house, cloth and feed these babies than their fathers. If he’s alive and able bodied, make him pay.

89 Nick Schroeder  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:56:50am

My personal take on this is that it’s just another instance of the religious right stamping their feet and taking their ball and going home. They lost on DADT, badly, because this opens the door to repealing the DOM Act and possibly even getting sexual orientation added to the list of things covered by the Civil Rights Act. Federal recognition of same-sex marriages is within striking distance, and it’s got these peddlers of ancient mystical derp all worked up into a tizzy because once the fight is lost, the poor saps who buy into their garbage will no longer have a reason to donate.

90 allegro  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:56:56am

re: #84 ggt

Yeah, those goddamned welfare queens! Working fulltime but still popping out those babies. When will they ever learn to keep their legs together!

///

91 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:57:07am

re: #87 SanFranciscoZionist

Have you even seen the movie The Invention of Lying? There is a wedding seen in which the most honest modern wedding vows are exchanged. Something about “Do you promise the stay together for as long as you want and take care of your children for as long as you can?”

92 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:58:15am

re: #88 moderatelyradicalliberal

Just remember that that punishes the child as much as the mother.

That is the main challenge to our society. Not punishing children for the mistakes of the parents.

93 blueraven  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 10:59:11am

re: #80 ggt

Yes, the welfare debit card allows for coke and pork rinds in Illinois. I chalk it up to the powerful snack food lobbies.

If you are speaking of “food stamps” then I would agree in part. I dont think stuff like sugary soft drinks and junk food should be included. But the minute you try to establish any guidelines, the Food Police cry will be heard loud and clear. See Sarah Palin.

As for baby formula, are you just as concerned that YOUR money goes to subsidize Big Agri/business and Big Pharma and that big corporations like Exxon pay no US federal income tax?

94 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:01:15am

re: #90 allegro

Actually, I’d go with learn to use birth control. My grandmother, who had nine children and eleven pregnancies would have killed for access to the Pill. Far too many people are not making use of birth control. It’s inexcusable and irresponsible. You don’t get this many unplanned pregnancies from broken condoms and faulty birth control. A lot of people aren’t using either.

95 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:01:20am

re: #88 moderatelyradicalliberal

When I lived in Florida, there was talk about a law (don’t know if it passed) that would require any woman who sought welfare benefits to name the father of her child so that child support could be pursued or she couldn’t get the benefits. I’m normally a bleeding heart, but I kinda liked the idea. No way I’m more responsible to house, cloth and feed these babies than their fathers. If he’s alive and able bodied, make him pay.

The problem is (IMHO) that between both the father and the mother (often both working full-time) there isn’t enough income to properly support more than one child (if one). So, instead of going to school to better their income (which I will HAPPILY pay for) they keep having kids and think it is totally natural to apply for aid. Most of the people I see are great parents, good people. It’s as if no one ever told them that adults were supposed to be self-sufficient. They make a lot of bad (IMHO) money choices. The single-mother concept is a myth. The fathers are often involved and paying.

I think a lot of money is lost to the bureaucracy. People justifying their existence. Every time money changes hands, someone get’s a cut of it. When I owned my own business, I learned that can add up FAST.

96 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:02:39am

re: #92 Obdicut

That’s why I said I kinda liked the idea. In the end I don’t want babies to starve. My anger at irresponsible adults does not extend to kids.

97 dmon  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:03:08am

Dont you think it odd that we live in a society, where a thirty something woman, working a full time job, earns so little she qualifies for public assistance?

Why is there no outrage about that?

98 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:03:18am

re: #95 ggt

The problem is (IMHO) that between both the father and the mother (often both working full-time) there isn’t enough income to properly support more than one child (if one). So, instead of going to school to better their income (which I will HAPPILY pay for) they keep having kids and think it is totally natural to apply for aid. Most of the people I see are great parents, good people. It’s as if no one ever told them that adults were supposed to be self-sufficient. They make a lot of bad (IMHO) money choices. The single-mother concept is a myth. The fathers are often involved and paying.

I think a lot of money is lost to the bureaucracy. People justifying their existence. Every time money changes hands, someone get’s a cut of it. When I owned my own business, I learned that can add up FAST.

I’m just wondering what is wrong with a society in which two parents working full-time can’t support more than one child.

99 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:04:08am

re: #98 SanFranciscoZionist

I’m with you on that.

100 dmon  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:04:30am

My daughter in law qualified for WIC while my son was in Afghanistan…….. we even ay the soldiers that our society supposedly support, a pittance.

101 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:04:55am

re: #88 moderatelyradicalliberal

When I lived in Florida, there was talk about a law (don’t know if it passed) that would require any woman who sought welfare benefits to name the father of her child so that child support could be pursued or she couldn’t get the benefits. I’m normally a bleeding heart, but I kinda liked the idea. No way I’m more responsible to house, cloth and feed these babies than their fathers. If he’s alive and able bodied, make him pay.

Agreed.

102 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:05:22am

re: #93 blueraven

If you are speaking of “food stamps” then I would agree in part. I dont think stuff like sugary soft drinks and junk food should be included. But the minute you try to establish any guidelines, the Food Police cry will be heard loud and clear. See Sarah Palin.

As for baby formula, are you just as concerned that YOUR money goes to subsidize Big Agri/business and Big Pharma and that big corporations like Exxon pay no US federal income tax?

Food Stamps? We have “Link” debit cards that are replenished once a month. I think most states have gone to such a system to lessen fraud. I think there are groups trying to establish limits, but as you said the Big Players in the food industry depend on that money. There is no more junk food in schools, that was a difficult battle. It’s a rotten circle.

103 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:06:28am

re: #94 moderatelyradicalliberal

Actually, I’d go with learn to use birth control. My grandmother, who had nine children and eleven pregnancies would have killed for access to the Pill. Far too many people are not making use of birth control. It’s inexcusable and irresponsible. You don’t get this many unplanned pregnancies from broken condoms and faulty birth control. A lot of people aren’t using either.

I know, it baffles my mind. Women worked so hard for the right to use contraception.

104 blueraven  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:07:50am

re: #102 ggt

Food Stamps? We have “Link” debit cards that are replenished once a month. I think most states have gone to such a system to lessen fraud. I think there are groups trying to establish limits, but as you said the Big Players in the food industry depend on that money. There is no more junk food in schools, that was a difficult battle. It’s a rotten circle.

Whatever it is called, you didn’t answer my question. Are you just as concerned that your tax dollars subsidize big business?

105 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:08:12am

re: #98 SanFranciscoZionist

I’m just wondering what is wrong with a society in which two parents working full-time can’t support more than one child.

What’s wrong is that the costs of having children keep going up. Their activities cost more, and so do the education expenses (from tutoring to private school, these are often needed to compensate for local school shortcomings).

106 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:09:18am

re: #97 dmon

Dont you think it odd that we live in a society, where a thirty something woman, working a full time job, earns so little she qualifies for public assistance?

Why is there no outrage about that?

Its a sign of the widening gap we keep hearing about. Overseas outsourcing of industrial jobs …

In many of the Sci-Fi novels I read, the workers to to where the jobs are. They don’t expect to stay in Iowa or wherever they came from—they end up in Singapore or Outer Texahedranol Beta. I think American’s are spoiled in many ways.

We are in a brave new world and the growing pains suck.

107 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:11:03am

re: #98 SanFranciscoZionist

I’m just wondering what is wrong with a society in which two parents working full-time can’t support more than one child.

I don’t think I blame society. The world is changing. Individuals have to get the proper education and move to where the jobs are if they are going to survive.

It’s a major paradigm shift. Many choose not to, they’d rather be peasants in the same town with the people and places they know. It’s a lot easier choice when WE subsidize them.

108 dmon  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:11:13am

Private schools???? Hell these people are ust hoping they can make next months rent……. both parties have sold the middle class in this country down the river……but they keep everyone arguing amongst themselves so that they dont point the finger where it belongs…….. politicians and the money sell us out for

109 dmon  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:11:52am

my typing sucks

110 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:11:59am

re: #104 blueraven

Whatever it is called, you didn’t answer my question. Are you just as concerned that your tax dollars subsidize big business?

Yes

111 blueraven  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:12:33am

re: #107 ggt

I don’t think I blame society. The world is changing. Individuals have to get the proper education and move to where the jobs are if they are going to survive.

It’s a major paradigm shift. Many choose not to, they’d rather be peasants in the same town with the people and places they know. It’s a lot easier choice when WE subsidize them.

Yes…lets ship them all to Malaysia or Singapore. //

112 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:12:35am

re: #105 Dark_Falcon

What’s wrong is that the costs of having children keep going up. Their activities cost more, and so do the education expenses (from tutoring to private school, these are often needed to compensate for local school shortcomings).

I’d say it’s more that the days when a man could support a family on a blue-collar job that was available to most are long over.

113 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:13:21am

re: #111 blueraven

Yes…lets ship them all to Malaysia or Singapore. //

I’m more into individuals choosing their own paths. Making their own opportunities. …

114 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:15:00am

re: #105 Dark_Falcon

I think a lot of the basics are difficult to keep up with as well. Housing and even food. Healthy food is more expensive than the unhealthy stuff. Attaining and maintaining middle class status does seem to be more difficult.

115 dmon  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:15:05am

re: #113 ggt

Ok….then why arent these deadbeats moving to Malaysia or Singapore? //

116 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:15:21am

re: #107 ggt

I don’t think I blame society. The world is changing. Individuals have to get the proper education and move to where the jobs are if they are going to survive.

It’s a major paradigm shift. Many choose not to, they’d rather be peasants in the same town with the people and places they know. It’s a lot easier choice when WE subsidize them.

Where are the jobs? Seriously, it’s not as though workers can follow their jobs overseas.

I’m finding it hard to believe that if we slashed welfare benefits, people would magically migrate to Bangladesh.

117 blueraven  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:15:36am

re: #110 ggt

Yes

OK, then I am sure I will come across a rant about that somewhere in your previous posts.

118 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:15:58am

re: #104 blueraven

Whatever it is called, you didn’t answer my question. Are you just as concerned that your tax dollars subsidize big business?

Yes, then we get back into the rotten circle meme. Those corporations employ people with benefits … …

119 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:16:15am

re: #114 moderatelyradicalliberal

I think a lot of the basics are difficult to keep up with as well. Housing and even food. Healthy food is more expensive than the unhealthy stuff. Attaining and maintaining middle class status does seem to be more difficult.

I’ve noticed.

120 theheat  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:16:53am

Even without the Family Research Council and the couple other fundie groups that have adopted the withdrawal method concerning CPAC, there are plenty of other haters and nuts attending, and plenty of hate and craziness in the party itself.

And the GOP only has itself to blame, since it’s redefined conservatism to be the religious right, anti-science, anti free-choice, climate change deniers, birthers, creationists - basically a soft core version of any random visit to Free Republic, with a strong drill-it-and-kill-it corporate aftertaste. Of course, all the GOP’s heavy hitters are more than happy to show up to support the events of groups like the Family Research Council, Value Voters Summit, Heartland Institute, etc., so the FRC’s absence is hardly a game changer.

The GOP still “stinks like a whorehouse at low tide” (that saying courtesy of my vintage dad, before he called Free Republic his second homepage after Fox News, and long before he called the POTUS a fucking Kenyan Muslim).

Doesn’t matter, they still suck; they’re gone and they ain’t a’coming back.

121 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:16:54am

re: #115 dmon

Ok…then why arent these deadbeats moving to Malaysia or Singapore? //

They won’t work that cheap . . /////

122 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:17:21am

re: #112 SanFranciscoZionist

I’d say it’s more that the days when a man could support a family on a blue-collar job that was available to most are long over.

Welcome to the wonderful world of globalization.

/I know, I know.

123 blueraven  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:18:17am

re: #118 ggt

Yes, then we get back into the rotten circle meme. Those corporations employ people with benefits …

I see, its OK to pick the winners and losers, if they are already winners.

124 dmon  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:18:42am

I think the jobs were as good as gone when we started making these “free trade agreements”, industry pushed for these on the lie that they wanted foreign markets to open to US businesses. People in those countries earn pennies a day, what the hell could the possibly buy from us? The real goal was to drop the import taxes so they could move manufacturing overseas, pay pennies a day, then ship products back.


The only problem is that eventually no one can buy their products

125 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:18:49am

re: #116 SanFranciscoZionist

Where are the jobs? Seriously, it’s not as though workers can follow their jobs overseas.

I’m finding it hard to believe that if we slashed welfare benefits, people would magically migrate to Bangladesh.

No, nothing will happen overnight.

I think we are in a long harsh season of change.

One thing I do know, is that as long as people are complacent, they won’t use their minds to create new science, new ideas, new industries.

126 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:19:31am

re: #117 blueraven

OK, then I am sure I will come across a rant about that somewhere in your previous posts.

Probably not. I don’t think we are on the same page here, but I tired and we’ll have to pick-it up another time.

127 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:20:51am

re: #123 blueraven

I see, its OK to pick the winners and losers, if they are already winners.

No, I’m not picking anything. I’m just watching and trying to understand.

128 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:27:43am

re: #120 theheat

Yeah, that’s about right.

Are you a former Republican by any chance? Your post has a slight disappointed ex flavor to it.

129 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:29:14am

Have a great day all!

130 theheat  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:33:38am

re: #128 moderatelyradicalliberal

Yeah, that’s about right. Are you a former Republican by any chance? Your post has a slight disappointed ex flavor to it.

Former, and never again, Republican. But I’m not disappointed in them so much as after careful reflection, I find the party utterly repulsive. I can’t be disappointed in something I find repulsive.

131 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:35:43am

re: #130 theheat

I have a friend who feels the same way, but she stays in the GOP to in her words “fight” what’s wrong. I take you feel they are too far gone for that.

132 palomino  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 11:45:35am

Overall message of these right wing groups: our tent is small and we intend to keep it that way.

Sorry, but that’s not a winning 21st century strategy, politically or morally.

133 theheat  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 12:02:44pm

re: #131 moderatelyradicalliberal

I don’t want to further any of their causes - not one - so there’s nothing to fight for. They don’t deserve my time, energy, or support, to change them.

134 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 12:11:19pm

re: #133 theheat

I understand.

135 Lidane  Wed, Dec 29, 2010 2:56:13pm

re: #34 ggt

I’m very glad CPAC made this move.

The fact that they’re still bending over backwards for the John Birch Society negates any good that might come from pissing off the religious right.

This is a case of one step forward, a hundred steps back.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh