Doesn’t look like an olive branch to me. Writing in today’s (Tuesday's) Wall Street Journal, novelist and sometime Republican activist Mark Helprin (not to be confused with Time magazine’s Mark Halperin) takes a series of insulting personal shots at the radio talk show hosts who’ve criticized John McCain for his numerous anti-conservative positions.
Helprin, whose last big political job was working as an advisor to Bob Dole in 1996, calls hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity “hairdressers [who] can talk all day long to one client as they snip...the depth of their thought is truly Oprah-like,” even as Ann Coulter is “relentlessly crocodilian.” For what it's worth, Helprin’s Wikipedia entry calls him a “conservative commentator.”
Helprin blames the “hissy fit” these conservative hosts are having on greedy self-interest, saying if Democrats take the White House, only “a small class of conservatives will benefit. And who might they be? They might be those whose influence and coffers swell on discontent, and who find attacking a President easier and more sensational than the dreary business of defending one. They rose during the Clinton years. Perhaps they are nostalgic. It isn't worth it, however, for the rest of us."
If the goal is to eventually get conservatives and the McCain campaign to join forces for November, such small-minded and petty attacks seem designed only to further deepen the divisions that currently exist.
Here’s a further excerpt of Helprin’s piece from today’s (Tuesday's) Wall Street Journal:
What a kerfuffle! Half a dozen talk-radio hosts whose major talent is that, like hairdressers, they can talk all day long to one client after another as they snip, have decided that the presumptive Republican nominee does not hew sufficiently close to their gospel.As anyone who has listened to them knows, the depth of their thought is truly Oprah-like. And if a great institution of the left can weigh-in as it does in the choice of a nominee, why not its fraternal twins on the right? It doesn't matter that Mitt Romney, suddenly their Reagan, became a conservative in a flash of light sometime last year, or that their other champion, a populist theocrat, is in many ways as conservative as Vladimir Lenin. The task is to stop the devil McCain.
As a mere print person whose words are not electrified and shot through walls, automobiles, pine trees, and brains, I realize that what I write in the bloody ink of a dying industry may be irrelevant. But from my antiquated perspective, something is very wrong....
If those who are in a hissy fit about Sen. McCain would rather have Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, they will get Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton -- how delightful to go to jail for building your house on land once visited by an exotic moth -- and they will wake up to a great regret, as if in their drunkenness they had taken Shrek to bed.
But, guess what? Even if, as the country veers left, living conservatives gnash their teeth and dead ones spin in their graves, a small class of conservatives will benefit. And who might they be? They might be those whose influence and coffers swell on discontent, and who find attacking a president easier and more sensational than the dreary business of defending one. They rose during the Clinton years. Perhaps they are nostalgic. It isn't worth it, however, for the rest of us.
So, rather than playing recklessly with electoral politics by sabotaging their own party ostensibly for its impurity but equally for the sake of their self-indulgent pique, each of these compulsive talkers might be a tad less self-righteous, look to the long run, discipline himself, suck it up, and be a man. And that would apply equally as well to the gorgeous Laura Ingraham and the relentlessly crocodilian Ann Coulter.
—Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Rich....
February 12, 2008 - 11:18 ET by Tom BlumerHelprin is, as far as I can tell, a real-deal conservative, who, among other things, contends that our military has never been rebuilt to nearly the level it needs to be after the Clinton-Era hollowing out.
I don't have a problem with the talkers' criticisms of McCain, as much as I do with their ignorant fawning over Romney. Limbaugh and Hannity, in particular, have spent the last 15-16 years railing against socialized medicine, and then blindly supported the guy who made it a reality in MA. Further, they have ignored the stories about how it is blowing up with out-of-control costs, overutilization, and the usual, oh-so-predictable problems. Laura Ingraham called Mitt "the conservatives' conservative" at CPAC. That's just ridiculous.
Listeners expect better than that from the kings and queens of talk, and simply didn't get it this time around.
Helprin is, as far as I can tell,
February 12, 2008 - 11:55 ET by IamTinmana would be fascist who doesn't believe that people should be allowed to express their own opinions if they happen to differ from his. Where is the law that says Rush, Hannity etal have to fawn over the presumptive front runner if they feel he's a flawed candidate? Or, happen to prefer someone else who, on the issues that they, and most likely their listeners, hold important.
If they and their audience don't make it clear to McCain that he can't take them for granted, do you think he will pay any attention to them after he's elected? His track record isn't so good on that and I haven't seen any change yet in his campaign rhetoric. His little song and dance at cPAC needs a lot more work.
Anyway, Get over it Mark. You live in a free country.
Helprin, Editors, Unfamiliar With Rush's WSJ Roots
February 12, 2008 - 13:19 ET by zeestephenSo, Mark Helprin, writing on the editorial page of the WSJ, claims Rush Limbaugh has the "intellectual depth of Oprah Winfrey."
In the early 1990's, Rush became successful by delivering the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal each day to millions of Main Street radio listeners!
That was back in day before WSJ centrists like David Brooks and Paul Gigot took charge of the editorial page and surgically removed its Conservative heart.
Limbaugh and Hannity, in
February 12, 2008 - 12:50 ET by JasonCLimbaugh and Hannity, in particular, have spent the last 15-16 years railing against socialized medicine, and then blindly supported the guy who made it a reality in MA.
Exactly! Thank you. I have been saying this for weeks. I live in MA and Romney has royally screwed up our tax code and right to choice with his dystopic, fascism-in-a-smiley-faced-veneer-of-altruism healthcare program. How conservatives who loathe the very idea of socialized medicine, much less a system of socialized medicine with punitive taxation measures for the working poor, can still support Romney, I truly do not understand.
I think this op/ed is fabulous. Well-written, and an astute look at the fact that, whether left or right, the professional ideologues have no real reason to care who is elected. Michael Moore and Coulter and Hannity are set for life. The election of the opposition only gives them more fodder with which to convince their listeners that they are being victimized by the left/right and wring more dollars out of the victimization. During Bush's first term, the left was great at doing this. Now the right, including a couple of particularly bombastic NB contributors, are showing they can play that game too.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
To which the response is "So What?"
February 12, 2008 - 13:23 ET by IamTinmanCommentators like Hannity, Rush, etal make their living broadcasting their own opinions, not being the paid mouthpiece for a political party. They are under no obligation to do anything other than what they are currently doing. As listeners, if we disagree with them, we always have the option of changing the channel.
McCain if he really wants to win in November has got to know that while he may win the delegate count and the nomination, so far 2 out of every 3 gop votes went to someone other than him. He should also know that if he looks at a red/blue map which is what counts in Nov, by and large, he has won the blue states where he will lose in the general election and been trashed in the red states by Romney, Huckabee, and the rest of the more conservative field. He needs the conservative support more than they need him.
There is an arguement to be made that in 4 years conservatives will not be somehow more liberal, but that after 4 years of a Clinton/Obama presidency, a lot of moderates who are always the swing votes will have changed their minds.
So what?
February 12, 2008 - 14:17 ET by Tom BlumerYou mean, "So what if Rush and Hannity supported a guy who put socialized medicine into place in MA, and then either called him a genuine conservative, or treated him as if he is a genuine conservative, after 15-16 years of railing against it as the end of the republic?"
Of should I add, "So what if the guy they liked raised taxes and fees by hundreds of millions of dollars? Or extra-constitutionally imposed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts when he had no constitutional or judicial mandate to do so (to keep a campaign promise)? Or claimed to be a lifelong hunter with the endorsement of the NRA, when neither was the case? Or claimed that Ronald Reagan was "adamantly pro-abortion," when the historical record going back to Reagan's gubernatorial terms shows exactly the opposite? Or presided over a state economy that did just as poorly, if not worse, than Bob Taft's in Ohio?"
Even given all that, I don't object to the complaints about McCain, which are largely valid. But the talkers and pundits like Coulter put on rose-colored glasses for Romney and mentioned NOTHING about the above, for no valid reason other than that Romney isn't McCain.
That's exactly the kind of malpractice we beat up on Old Media about day after day. When our guys do it, we need to call it out.
Given that, Helprin still could have and should have done it without the childish name-calling.
Isn't the usual refrain...
February 12, 2008 - 14:28 ET by mvfreemanto those excellent points about Romney that "he's changed!!"?
Other pols pander but Romney has "seen the light." Riiiiiiiight.
One of the most liberal states in the country elected a "conservative's conservative" for governor? I guess that makes Ah-nuld a "real" conservative too.
Tom
February 12, 2008 - 14:31 ET by MassConservTom, This statement, "Or extra-constitutionally imposed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts when he had no constitutional or judicial mandate to do so (to keep a campaign promise)?" is not true.
Same-sex marriage was in fact imposed on Massachusetts by a judical mandate. And was illegally upheld by our liberal congress when they refused a court order to vote on allowing the issue to be brought before the voters in a ballot question.
Romney, in fact, was quite vocal about trying to get the original court ruling overturned and enforced an "outdated" 1913 law to keep out-of-staters from coming here to get "married."
Sorry, on that, you're
February 12, 2008 - 16:59 ET by Tom BlumerSorry, on that, you're totally wrong. Read up.
No Tom.
February 13, 2008 - 10:18 ET by MassConservYou're WRONG. I lived through that sorry period of Massachusetts history. Posting a link to a website who hates Romney isn't going to change the facts. Try doing some research and reading actual news accounts from that time.
I'm not arguing other points, I'm just telling you you're source is wrong on this one.
If I thought Romney was
February 13, 2008 - 11:47 ET by JasonCIf I thought Romney was personally responsible for gay marriage here in MA, I'd consider voting for him. Too late now, of course, but you know what I mean. I'm proud to live in the one state that doesn't water it down to "Civil Union" or just outlaw it altogether.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Yeah, this is one of those
February 13, 2008 - 14:46 ET by fitzfongYeah, this is one of those arguments I occasionally have with my parents. They seem fine with the concept of a "Civil Union" with benefits and survivorship. But the attachment to the word "marriage" really bothers them. I'm married, too, but my wife and I would have no problem with the concept of a gay civil union being legally recognized as a marriage. However, I believe that such a recognition must be attained using the proper legal channels (none of this "legislating from the bench" that the Courts seem so eager to do).
fitz, they already have
February 13, 2008 - 14:58 ET by dscottfitz, they already have those rights now, it's called a Last Will & Testament, the Power of Attorney and Medical POA. Between these three documents the legal authorities must abide by the wishes of the person signing said documents. As I understand it, many gays don't want it either, who would want to be drug through the family law court at the break up of a relationship???? Most gay relationships are transitory, they don't last a lifetime much less 10 years. The whole gay marriage thing is a canard. The real issue is to force normal people to accept the life style choices of gays. That's why Ted Kennedy tried to elevate opposition to sexual orientation to the level of the hate crimes statute.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
I understand that gays have
February 13, 2008 - 16:03 ET by fitzfongI understand that gays have many of the "trappings" (advantageous and disadvantageous) of marriage without actually having the desired designation. I also understand that much of the resistance to gay marriage is based on the belief that marriage is sacred (of a sacrament) and that gay relationships (like unmarried live-in heterosexual partnerships) are not morally equivalent to marriage. I'm of the belief that if two consenting adults love each other and are committed to living together and sharing that love for a lifetime...with the understanding that they will be accepting the same specific responsibilities that are unique to traditional marriage...the law should permit them to marry. It becomes a semantics exercise when you afford people all the rights and responsibilities of a marriage without designating it to be so. And, by the way, I believe the assignment of extra punishment for a crime based on specific motivation (i.e. hate crimes legislation) is akin to "thought crime", and should not exist.
Most gay relationships are
February 13, 2008 - 16:07 ET by JasonCMost gay relationships are transitory, they don't last a lifetime much less 10 years
Source, please.
And besides which, doesn't the fact that gay people ARE taking advantage of the ability to marry signal that it is not all about forcing homosexuality into the mainstream (although it may perhaps have that effect, which I have no problem with anyhow) but that many gay couples are rejecting the stereotype of the homosexual as promiscuous?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So Jason - you think it's fair to kids to be denied a mother
February 13, 2008 - 16:18 ET by Dee Bunkand father? You don't see any value in a child being raised by two different sexes? I see a large value in that and don't think that Gay couples should be treated equally when it comes to children. Marriage is all about children.
Yes people can marry and not have kids, but the institution of marriage is meant to encourage raising kids. Yes Gay people can be good parents and they can be just as good parents with a civil union instead of a marriage. Gay marriage says that there is nothing beneficial about the mother/father family structure.
It's not fair to children.
I didn't realize that the
February 13, 2008 - 16:29 ET by balboaI didn't realize that the goal here was fairness for all children, which is impossible.
Dee, I'm afraid your post
February 13, 2008 - 16:38 ET by JasonCDee, I'm afraid your post is totally convoluted. So you're saying gay couples CAN be good parents, so long as we don't use the word 'marriage' to describe their relationship? How is it unfair to the children? What about the thousands upon thousands of abusive, neglectful, or otherwise moronic parents out there who happen to be heterosexual? The majority of children that end up with gay couples will end up with them through adoption; which generally indicates the failure of their (ostensibly straight) parents in the first place.
My premise is not to say that the mother/father dynamic is unbeneficial, but that it's not inherently superior (inherently being very key). What is it that straight parents have to offer that two men or women can't equally offer, other than a model of heterosexuality? If the worry is that kids will see their two dads and thus decide to be as gay as well, that ostentatiously ignores the fact that plenty of gay people had straight parents, so obviously parental models are not a huge factor in sexuality.
Finally, if you're going to trot out the "marriage is about children" line, I don't see any way around a corollary obligation to insist that all married couples begin reproducing within a proscribed time period.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I would add to that by
February 13, 2008 - 17:08 ET by fitzfongI would add to that by saying that the most important factor for a child who's adopted is that he or she is wanted. A gay couple who wants to adopt a child is not typically looking to adopt simply to exhibit a neat new accessory. Raising a child is a huge commitment and carries great responsibility, one that some natural parents aren't up to honoring. The scrutiny that any parental candidate (homosexual or heterosexual) for adoption must go through is significant. I would suggest that "the children" politicians often pander to voting adults over would be far better off in loving adoptive homes (gay or straight) than they would be in orphanages, some foster homes or the homes of unfit, disinterested natural parents.
Jason, balboa and Fitz - you don't get it and you ignored what
February 13, 2008 - 17:26 ET by Dee BunkI said.
Of course people abuse children - Gay people abuse children also - abuse neglect everything else is assumed equal. Gay people certainly are not better parents are they? Are you advocating that only Gay people can have kids? I doubt it but that would be just as ridiculous of an interpretation of what you said as your interpretation of what I said.
The whole point of marriage is to provide for a family structure for a family that includes children. AGAIN just because some people marry and don't have children that doesn't change that.
Marriage for Gay people would condone it as just as desirable for the family structure and that isn't right.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T BE GOOD PARENTS OR SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO BE PARENTS! IT ONLY MEANS THAT THE PREFERABLE FAMILY IS A MOTHER AND A FATHER.
People who are not married and are not Gay decide to have children and never intend to marry. THAT ISN'T THE IDEAL SITUATION FOR KIDS - IT'S ALLOWED - SINGLE PEOPLE CAN STILL BE GOOD PARENTS.
Gay couples can get everything they need from a civil unions and there is no good reason to have gay marriage.
AND Jason - I did not say one word about sexuality being a
February 13, 2008 - 17:36 ET by Dee Bunkproblem. I didn't even hint or make the slightest implication that Gay parents would raise Gay children so I don't know where you came up with that.
It has nothing to do with sex. MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT no matter how much liberals want to tell you they aren't. Children learn different things from males and females and ideally they need both to learn the most. AGAIN IDEALLY. I especially think it's unfair of a boy to have two mothers or a girl to have two fathers. YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE IDEAL, NOT DISCOURAGE IT JUST BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT.
Again, I'm not saying that
February 13, 2008 - 22:54 ET by JasonCAgain, I'm not saying that either gay or straight parents are inherently better. That's my whole point.
Marriage for Gay people would condone it as just as desirable for the family structure and that isn't right.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T BE GOOD PARENTS OR SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO
BE PARENTS! IT ONLY MEANS THAT THE PREFERABLE FAMILY IS A MOTHER AND A
FATHER.
I guess I don't understand this line of reasoning...you're not against gay couples having children, but you don't want them to have a title that would ultimately legitimate their relationship in the social order? Why? What difference does that make?
And how is it unfair to children? I didn't mean to suggest that you thought gay parents would have an abberant influence on their children's sexuality. But I don't see what else there is to suggest that is unfair about it.
If we're going to allow gay couples to have children, but not let those children's parents assume the status of "married", that actually seems far worse to me. Doesn't that impart to the child the sense that his parents are different, inferior, and so forth?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
'm against Gay people having children for selfish reasons
February 14, 2008 - 09:23 ET by Dee Bunkjust like I'm against single people purposely planning to get pregnant and have a child out of wedlock. This is a free country - you can't and
shouldn't outlaw it, but that doesn't mean you should encourage it.
Things happen and single people get pregnant and it's honorable to have the child rather than kill it. Gay people have children in heterosexual relationships while trying to deny their sexuality and that is different also. It's not fair to a child to purposely plan to get pregnant knowing there will be no father .
In adoptions, Gay people should be equal with single people. Preference should always be given to Mother and Father households and same race households. If none are available then you go to different race then you go to single/Gay households. That is the most fair thing TO THE CHILDREN.
Were you raised without a Father Jason? Is that why you feel fathers
have no value? If you did have a father are you saying that he had no value and that another mother could have been just as good? I lost my mom when I was 19. I was technically an adult and I can tell you that as an adult woman it sucked in a thousand ways not to have a mom. Especially when I got pregnant. A second dad wouldn't have made it any easier. I can't imagine what it would have been like to never have had a mother. My dad was a wonderful person and very supportive and accepting of me no matter what I did, but he wasn't a mom. Shit happens, people lose one or both of their parents all the time but you wouldn't want to encourage it. You shouldn't encourage divorce as a society just because some people are better at being single parents than some others who are bad married parents.
What is the point of marriage in your scenario? If anything, you should argue for abolishing marriage all together because there would be no point to it. Any of the arguments you make can be made for polygamy or
single parent households so what is the point of marriage? In fact, polygamy is probably preferable to Gay or single households. Three mothers and a Father are better than no father at all. If the only point of marriage is just to force people to stay together it's pretty pointless.
Great Post Dee!!
February 15, 2008 - 20:16 ET by exLibI've recently come to a conclusion that liberalism seeks the exceptions in society and then builds a policy around it.
Conservativism finds what works and encourages it and builds incentive to achieve the ideal.
Sometimes life is strange
February 14, 2008 - 15:30 ET by fitzfongSometimes life is strange and the ideal is not always possible. We talk about an ideal family including a mother and father together raising the children while living under the same roof. But every once in a while, a well-intentioned, well-meaning ideal parent is taken away from his or her child. How many young children have lost one or both parents due to a car accident, a heart attack or even cancer? Those children don't grow up with two parents...but they still must be raised (whether it be by the remaining parent, other family or whatever) and they are still expected to grow up and become productive whether they had an ideal childhood or not. The term ideal suggests the most satisfactory situation, but when the ideal is not possible, it's best to have as many suitable alternatives as possible. You may not believe that a boy being raised by two mothers or a girl being raised by two fathers is ideal, but absent better alternatives, isn't it preferable that such children be raised by someone who is committed to loving them, raising them and caring for them...whatever their sexual orientation? It's fine to cling to an ideal as far as it goes...but it only goes so far. I'd much sooner see a child raised by a gay couple than by the state, for example.
fitzfong - obviously - I already said that - ABSENT A BETTER
February 14, 2008 - 22:49 ET by Dee BunkALTERNATIVE IT'S FINE! Why is this so hard for you people to comprehend? The first choice is to give kids a mother AND a father. Marriage is about the IDEAL for how children should be raised in our society. There is no other meaningful reason for it. Just because people lose a parent doesn't mean you encourage others to start out missing a mother or father. That is absolutely nuts!
You conveniently don't address what I said and pretend like I said something different.
Why don't you address the point that you may as well get rid of marriage all together so single people don't feel inadequate as parents and people who want to have multiple wives don't feel left out? Polygamists and single people can be very good parents also. It's completely absurd to argue for special treatment for one type of alternative life style. You need to lobby against marriage all together - it would make more sense then lobbing for Gay Marriage.
Right, the good old
February 14, 2008 - 23:34 ET by fitzfongRight, the good old "slippery slope" cliche. What's next? Are you going to ask me if I'd draw the line at a man marrying his goat? I don't have an agenda here. I just don't understand where the inherent resistance to gay marriage is coming from. If you have two consenting adults who love each other and are willing to commit their lives to each other...and have accepted the legal responsibilities along with the benefits of a marriage, why shouldn't the state sanction it if they go through the proper legal channels (i.e. not having an activist court decide for everyone)?
MARRIAGE IS ABOUT CHILDREN NOT GAY'S AND HETEROS
February 14, 2008 - 23:58 ET by Dee BunkTHAT'S WHY. I don't know how many different ways I can say it. Why would I ask about a man marrying his goat? That's crazy who would want to do that? You people who assume that others don't like gay people just because they don't want gay marriage assume all kind of wacko things.
I compared legitimate alternative life styles and you come back with marriage between men and goats???? Come on! Wake up past your prejudice and try to understand what I'm saying. I didn't say anything about a slippery slope. I said it's not fair to give one alternative life style (legitimate ones not one's with animals) preference over other alternative life styles. Period.
Two consenting adults are free to love one another and should be free to enter into some sort of civil union for the purposes of financial benefits and stated commitment.
CHILDREN DESERVE A MOTHER AND A FATHER. THAT IS WHAT MARRIAGE SHOULD ENCOURAGE.
So marriage is about
February 15, 2008 - 00:44 ET by fitzfongSo marriage is about children? That's funny. I'm married. I don't have children. I may never have children. Does that make me any less married?
When you use a euphemism like "alternative lifestyle" to describe a gay relationship...especially when subsequently equivocating said relationship to polygamy (and in the same thread where it was asserted that most gay relationships are "transient"), you are essentially establishing a slippery slope. Then it becomes an exercise in "where do you draw the line". Pedophiles? Beastiality?
Frankly, I believe people use "the children" as justification to push just about any agenda on the rest of us without having to argue the merits of the position taken...an opposition to gay marriage being one of them.
Super post, Fitz. What I'm
February 15, 2008 - 08:37 ET by JasonCSuper post, Fitz. What I'm really not understanding about Dee's position is that she has said she supports gay people having legal unions and even adopting kids; I don't understand what the actual legal status of "marriage" changes as far as the welfare of the children. I would think it would be better, actually, for a kid to know his parents had made a legally-sanctioned commitment, even if they are of the same sex.
And yes, ideally, a mother and father, both loving and attentive and nurturing would perhaps be ideal. But we have seen the utter ineptitude of thousands upon thousands of heterosexual parental units (if you've ever worked for social services or even in a public school then you've seen this to a depressing degree) and the plain fact remains that sexuality simply does not make a compelling indicator of parental responsibility.
And I agree with Fitz entirely about this "marriage is about children" stuff. Sorry Dee, but that is BS of the rankest vintage. I too am married w/o children and consider myself no less married because of it. I think Fitz is entirely right about the use of the totemic figure of The Child in our cultural discussions. Remember the minister's wife on The Simpsons? Whenever something even mildly immoral was happening she would shriek "Think of the children?!" It is laughable when liberals try to cajole people into accepting universal healthcare or "end" war by invoking the innocent child, and it is no less repugnant with respect to gay rights.
D ee, I commend you for being more open than most conservatives regarding gay unions and adoption, but I do not understand this attachment to preventing that union from being designated marriage, ie allowing gay couples the same social designation as straight ones. I don't see how it bears on "the children".
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason - It's quite obvious that you & Fitz don't have children
February 15, 2008 - 09:27 ET by Dee Bunkthe two of you are completely oblivious to the needs they have and refuse to give them the slightest consideration. You treat them as inconsequential and as if they are problems to be dealt with after the fact, rather than planned for. You object to encouraging parents to give them the best possible life. I take extreme offense at you and Fitz implying that I'm just talking about children for an excuse. It's so unbelievably ignorant of you and a typical liberal mind set that liberals have that anyone who doesn't agree with them is faking or racist or sexist or a homophobic - SCREW YOU! I'm none of those things and I would bet money that I'm more tolerant of all those groups han either of you.
You are probably just like Syrius when it comes to Christians and ASSUME through your ignorance that no matter what they say - they are all equal to abortion bombers. You people are so stuck in your liberal brainwashed way that you can't even argue with someone based on what they say. You have to assume all sorts of things that the media tells you to believe.
You keep bringing up problem parents as some sort of excuse as if Gay people can't also be problem parents when it comes to abuse, divorce etc... It's a stupid argument. It's not part of the equation. Gay people and straight people are equally fallible as parents. That doesn't change the fact that children deserve a mother and father if possible.
Civil unions would be a legally sanctioned agreement that Gay people and others ( like a Mother and a Grandmother or two sisters or two brothers or two friends or many other combinations of people who want to raise children who are not married) can enter into. You refuse to address why any of these other people should be left out.
It's so extremely frustrating how the both of you continue to ignore any of my points and restate them in some homophobic way. I'm really fed up with both of you and the two of you need to pal up with Syrius and talk and laugh amongst yourselves how all conservatives and Christians are terrorists because of a couple wack job abortion bombers. You have no ability to address arguments beyond the framing of the MSM.
Dee, You're forgetting
February 15, 2008 - 09:41 ET by LeonDee,
You're forgetting the most simple fact about raising children.
It's been shown time and time again through innumerable studies that the most important factor behind normative child development is the QUALITY of the care, not the actual caregiver.
All couples regardless of sexual orientation have the exact same opportunity to provide high quality care. Who they love has no impact on their ability to raise a child, provide a nurturing environment, provide adequate resources, or provide adequate support.
Your argument that the best environment for a child is a home with a husband and wife doesn't hold water. How many examples do we have where this set-up has been a miserable failure? 50%? 60%? Christ, the divorce rate is 50%.
If this is such a great family unit, why do they fail so regularly? B/c the composition of the family doesn't matter. All that matters is the quality of care provided by that family.
Say what you will, but unfortunately, your viewpoint, when boiled down is based on nothing more than an ignorance of child development and a dislike of the gay lifestyle.
PS The purpose of marriage is not simply to have children. But way to insult all of those married couples that don't have children.
Leon - when you have your fingers in your ears
February 15, 2008 - 09:53 ET by Dee Bunkand you are yelling "na na na I can't hear you" then you will never get my points. I'm done responding to you people who can't even respond to what I've said. I said probably ten times in this thread that being Hetero or Gay does not affect the quality of the individual parent. You have ignored my arguments just like Jason and Fitz and I'm done with you people.
Some day when you get your fingers out of your ears then we can discuss it.
Screw Me? Maybe when you
February 15, 2008 - 09:49 ET by JasonCScrew Me? Maybe when you get over the histrionics we can have a proper debate.
You are projecting things onto myself and Fitz that are not there and for which you have no basis. I don't mind being referred to as liberal, but I can bet you Fitz will take serious issue with it.
On what imaginary pretext could you possible be basing your assumption that your more tolerant of gay people than me?
What issues are you raising that I'm avoiding? How have you still not squared all of your so-called arguments about children "deserving" a mother and father with the fact that you nonetheless don't have a problem with gay people adopting? How does a minor change in the status of the union between the parents affect this?
And then you accuse me of believing Christians are terrorists? Where did that come from? First of all, I had a solid UCC upbringing (as was my wife, if that makes any difference) and I'm quite certain my family and friends were not terrorists. Second, that accusation has zero to do with the topic at hand.
Where did I accuse you of homophobia? Where did I dodge your questions? Calm down a little already, you were one of the rational ones around here before this thread.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I thought you were rational Jason and You are not
February 15, 2008 - 10:08 ET by Dee BunkSome day when you get your fingers out of your ears -read through this thread and actually try and address what I've said.
No matter how many times I've said that Gay people can be good parents you come back with crap that assumes I think they can't. You also have the nerve to say that I use children as an excuse to descriminate against Gay people. It's offensive. Especially since I know you have read posts of mine supporting Gay people.
You have avoided, as has Fitz and balboa and Leon, my main points which are:
1. Why should Gay people get special treatment over other alternative lifestyles
2. What is the point of marriage in society?
3. What is the best situation for a Female child to be raised in? What is the best situation for a Male child to be raised in? What would be your preference for your childhood? Are you unhappy with the family structure you were raised in (I'm not talking about problems with a parent- the structure only)? Do you wish it would have been different? Why?
No matter how many times
February 15, 2008 - 10:25 ET by JasonCNo matter how many times I've said that Gay people can be good parents you come back with crap that assumes I think they can't.
Totally untrue. I have repeatedly acknowledged that you've said they can be gay parents. What I don't understand is why you think the institution of marriage bears on this.
Why should Gay people get special treatment over other alternative lifestyles
First of all, the "alternative lifestyles" label has a pejorative feel to it, which is why, I think, Fitz assumed your next rhetorical move would be the "What about bestiality, incest, etc" argument. We're both glad you didn't go there. I think any two consenting adults should be allowd to be married. Gender, or even blood relations, does not enter into it for me.
What is the point of marriage in society?
For two people to enter into a socially-recognized contract whereby monogamy is enforced and legal/financial benefits are regulated. Also, for the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment before their friends and family.
What is the best situation for a Female child to be raised in? What is
the best situation for a Male child to be raised in? What would be your
preference for your childhood? Are you unhappy with the family
structure you were raised in (I'm not talking about problems with a
parent- the structure only)? Do you wish it would have been different?
Why?
My personal childhood is irrelevant and should have no bearing on how I feel about this issue. I think the presence of two parents is optimal for many reasons, most of them just plain pragmatic. I do not think that the gender of those parents matters. Leon laid it out very coherently above. If a child feels deprived having same-gender parents, I believe it would be the fault of a culture that tells him or her that his situation is abnormal; not an innate apprehension of such.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Finally! you addressed my points without insulting me
February 15, 2008 - 10:37 ET by Dee BunkUnfortunately I'm out of time and the thread is too thin. I'll either respond in a PM or preferably figure a way to transfer this to a Forum later.
When did I insult you? Who
February 15, 2008 - 10:42 ET by JasonCWhen did I insult you? Who are you confusing me with?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Geeze fitzfong - how thick in the head are you?
February 15, 2008 - 08:48 ET by Dee BunkYou keep arguing with me as if I'm someone else. You aren't listening. I have no problems - zero problems with Gay people being gay - get that through your head before you read anything else. I have friends who are Gay, I have relatives who are Gay. I love them, I don't want them to have unfair treatment.
I'm not talking about a slippery slope -YOU ARE! I'm not equating Gay love to the love of an animal YOU ARE! I'm talking about- legitimate life styles that are happening NOW. Your argument for Gay marriage should be applied the same to those LEGITIMATE life styles. People are purposefully single their whole life AND people in other cultures believe that one man with multiple wives is a better way to raise children (and they are right in some cases).
We here in the U.S. have marriage between one man and one woman only because we believe that it is the best family structure for children with the way our society operates. If it wasn't the reason then there would be no legitimate reason for disallowing polygamy and really no point to marriage at all. Single people can be good parents just like Gay people can. AND I ALREADY SAID just because you get married doesn't mean you will always have children or should be forced to have children but that doesn't change the fact that it's the point of marriage. People who are married are less likely to abort a child or give it up for adoption then those who are just sleeping around having casual sex. SEX PRODUCES CHILDREN whether people like it or not.
No one shuns people for not having children when they are married, no one should shun a single person who has a child, no one should shun a Gay person who has a child, no one should shun people in other cultures who a have more than one wife.
You are extremely ignorant to say that I'm using children as an excuse. What is the point of marriage in your myopic mind? You seem to have bought into the liberal philosophy that children are just property and exist for the convenience of adults. Is the whole point of marriage in your mind to stop someone from breaking someone else's heart? Give me an F'ing break. If you think that then there is nothing I can say to you. If you don't think that - then tell me what your good reason is for society to encourage marriage.
People don't continue their marital benefits when they get divorced because IT'S NOT GOOD FOR CHILDREN. We don't want to encourage divorce. If people don't have children and get divorced who cares? It doesn't affect innocent children. Why should the government or society care whether two people who don't like each other stay married when they don't have kids?
Civil unions can give ALL People with LEGITIMATE alternative life styles all the rights they need. Gay people should not be given preferential treatment over everyone else especially over CHILDREN.
T
Dee --you just don;t get it---
February 15, 2008 - 01:20 ET by misterbillDee --I hope you know the heading was sarcastic--
Ever since the birth of America-- (I reserve the time frame for us here in America), people who were homosexuals have suffered at the hands of homophobes. It was not very nice for them. So, now, most Americans have become tolerant and understanding. The result??? Tolerance and understanding has turned into demands for "equal" treatment, Here are some of the results of "equal" treatment recently--Fed Judge Wolf in MA has ruled that parents have no say in what a school district decides to teach children about sex, including alternate lifestyles, in elemantary school. Just what we always wanted. The Montgomery County MD school board has decided that elementary school children need to know about anal and oral intercourse. Of course they do, how could anyone grow up not knowing such important information.
Honestly, I have felt that the issue about gay marriage has been the semantic , traditional use of the word "marriage". I have read some statistics on the incidence of promiscuity in homosexual relations, the short term "common law" unions and the like. I am heterosexual and find homosexuality to be an aberration. I have also found many other kinds of human relations to be aberrations. This, usually, does not turn me away from the rights of others. In social conversations, I have asked and wondered why the word "union" was not acceptable to either side. I never got a satisfactory answer.
All that said, if anyone comes and tries to recruit my grandchild to an "alternate lifestyle", I will strike and swiftly. I do not spend my days attempting to convince my grandchildren. or my children , for that matter, that heterosexuality is the only path to follow in life. (Although I think it is the best path.) The problem here is the self-appointed guardians of our consciences, the Politically Correct, very obnoxious, blindly compassionate fools who ask the rest of us to sit quietly by while a program of education and indoctrination in a lifestyle which most of us do not practice is thrust upon our youth.
Let our children alone. Let them grow up in peace. You of the gay lifestyle, practice what you wish in private. I will not peek in your bedroom if you do not peek in mine. Dee Bunk is correct. God created two sexes, not one. I would change one thing Dee said and it does not disagree with her premise. Procreation is, for some of us, not the only reason for marriage. But , it certainly is on an even par with love and companionship. It certainly is , for most of us, the cement for a lasting relationship and for people like Dee and me and most folks it is an essential ingredient of our marriages.
I show the gay life understanding, the gays tell me how my children should live. I show I undestand the desire for an official status and the gay community insists it has to be exactly like a heterosexual marriage, I suggest you talk to God about that. I did not create the earth and all its people. If you do not believe in God, that's OK too, it's not my position to judge that. My Dad was right. "No matter what you give some people, they will always ask for more."
From Dee:"Gay couples can get everything they need from a civil unions and there is no good reason to have gay marriage."
I believe that to be correct and that it is the feelings of most Americans. So, suck it up, get on with your life and if you meet me, know that I respect you, I just disagree with what you want.
With all due respect,
February 15, 2008 - 01:50 ET by fitzfongWith all due respect, there's a huge difference between most gay people and the "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" activist set. The gay people I know don't try to influence others, some have enough difficulty seeking acceptance of themselves to bother attempting to "convert" others. If gay people are having rights conferred upon them that you find objectionable, blame the courts, not the people who seek relief in them.
fitzfong, you're being disingenuous
February 15, 2008 - 10:03 ET by RJIn the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you pretend that there has been no aggressive and unrelenting attack machine operated by dishonest gay activists.
Even your suggestion to "blame the courts" is disingenuous. The activists only believe in the courts when they agree with their goals. When they don't get the desired legal rulings, they use other means. The courts said the Boy Scouts have the absolute Constitutional right to determine their own rules, but that was unacceptable to the gay community and their supporters, who then embarked on a nationwide campaign to destroy the BSA.
THAT'S your "benign", "just leave us alone" gay community in action.
Yay RJ - another reasoned voice
February 15, 2008 - 10:17 ET by Dee BunkI'm done with these people - good luck trying to reason with them. Anyone who comes here regularly knows that neither you are I are fundamentalists yet they can only argue with us as if we are.
I don't mean to disparage fundamentalists either - they have the right to their opinions but liberals like to think that just because some fundamentalist one time said that Gay love is like the love for a goat they can only argue from that frame of reference and ignore any legitimate arguments.
Their minds are as closed as the religious extremists and it's pointless to try and reason with them.
Really? Now, who's being
February 15, 2008 - 13:53 ET by fitzfongReally? Now, who's being disingenuous here? I pretended no such thing. So the "unrelenting attack machine operated by dishonest gay activists" represents all gay people? So then Al Sharpton represents all African-Americans? James Dobson represents all Evangelical Christians? Hillary Clinton represents all women? Eric Rudolph represents the entirety of the anti-abortion movement? I think you attach far too much authority to the activists and far too little credit for individual thought on the community these activists purport to represent.
"Who's being disingenuous here?"
February 15, 2008 - 14:50 ET by RJUm, deliberately or not, it appears YOU are, fitz. I responded to your post that took Mrbill's post sideways.
He said: "The problem here is the self-appointed guardians of our consciences, the Politically Correct, very obnoxious, blindly compassionate fools who ask the rest of us to sit quietly by while a program of education and indoctrination in a lifestyle which most of us do not practice is thrust upon our youth."
Your response pretended that was an accusation that "most gay people" are activists, pushing an agenda. You then said if you don't like the changes "blame the courts", a partly true, one-dimensional, irresponsible viewpoint that I refuted.
Further, I didn't claim the "unrelenting attack machine operated by dishonest gay activists" represents all gay people." I said (and I meant) that the dishonest gay activists are at the forefront, and that they are the ones trying to force their agenda on the rest of us. That is also what Mrbill referred to.
I don't know where you got
February 16, 2008 - 01:51 ET by fitzfongI don't know where you got the idea that you "refuted" anything, but suffice it to say you're the only one patting yourself on the back right now. I made a simple, very narrow statement: I believe that in a free society two consenting adults (heterosexual or homosexual) should be permitted to marry...especially if they have already assumed all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage without benefit of the legal designation. I believe that to have been a very clear, very specific statement, that, if not entirely reasonable, certainly wasn't earth-shattering. But a couple of people on this thread went off on reactionary tangeants as if the mere suggestion that two consenting adults getting married meant further advancing a vast gay agenda to poison the minds of impressionable children. Sorry, that's just ludicrous. And the way I see it, people who feel the need to inject children into every argument...especially one involving an issue like gay marriage that has almost nothing to do with children...will simply grasp at any straw to maintain a shaky position and to avoid addressing the substance of an issue.
By the way, where do you, RJ, draw the line between "most gay people" and "dishonest gay activists"? Does being gay and wishing to marry necessarily make someone a "dishonest gay activist"...or can a gay couple pursue marriage without being labelled "dishonest activists"?
Nice deflection, fitz
February 16, 2008 - 10:46 ET by RJBut of course (just as you did repeatedly with Dee) you dodged what I said in favor of rambling on and on about position statements that have nothing to do with my post. Try again, fitz, and see if this time can respond directly and specifically to my post.
And, yes, I refuted your shallow contention that it's primarily the courts who have been forcing an agenda on the rest of us. Do you really think that by "just saying no" without presenting an argument, you make it so? Clearly, you do.
Sorry to butt in, but I am
February 16, 2008 - 12:26 ET by JasonCSorry to butt in, but I am very interested in Fitz' main point of contention, which returns us to a much earlier point in the thread: How do we distinguish from gay people who are living quiet, private lives and those of the "We're here, we're queer" set. Does any gay person who asserts his or her rights in any sort of public forum qualify as the type who's "shoving it in our faces" (um, so to speak)? Must a gay person live in such a way that no one would ever be able to tell he or she is gay (aka 'passing') in order to avoid this categorization?
Damn, I promised myself I wasn't gonna post today. I brought a lot of work home with me this weekend. So I'm gonna log off and y'all respond when you please...
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason, repeating the "main point" is non-responsive
February 16, 2008 - 12:42 ET by RJYes, Jason, I got it. But I was responding to something specific fitz said, and his (and now, your) determined repetition of earlier statements is nothing less than avoidance and deflection.
Your characterization of
February 16, 2008 - 13:32 ET by JasonCYour characterization of this discussion is complicated by statements from Mrbill such as:
The problem here is the self-appointed guardians of our consciences,
the Politically Correct, very obnoxious, blindly compassionate fools
who ask the rest of us to sit quietly by while a program of education
and indoctrination in a lifestyle which most of us do not practice is
thrust upon our youth.
Or your statement:
The courts said the Boy Scouts have the absolute Constitutional right
to determine their own rules, but that was unacceptable to the gay
community and their supporters, who then embarked on a nationwide
campaign to destroy the BSA.
This seems to be a conflation of the legal system with everyday gay activism. That is, the persistent idea that there is a homosexual faction that wants to recruit America's children, a notion which not only ignores the very basic psychology of sexual preference, but also continues the inane and irresponsible practice of invoking the Figure of the Innocent Child in order to influence policy and opinion that have little if anything to do with the socio-political concerns of the average homosexuals individual. That is what fitz and I have been arguing from the very beginning, and what has yet to be answered in a fashion any more sophisticated or critical than simply questioning our own regard for traditional family.
Most gay people, for instance, could not care less what the BSA does. That issue blew up because of a concerted effort on the part of a small activist faction and the fact that the consistently-invoked trope of an effete scoutleader going camping with boys was enough to create outrage and anxiety among mainstream heterosexual families. For the gay activists, it was an ideal opportunity to highlight a traditional organization which was taking a stand construed as "anti-gay". For those on the other side of the fight, it was an ideal opportunity to present themselves as defenders of the child against the perceived narcissism and anti-futurity of homosexuality.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason, you throw in quotes without context
February 16, 2008 - 16:12 ET by RJIt was Fitz' response to Mrbill's post (the one you quoted out of context) that I responded to. In that post fitz went sideways with the points made by Mrbill. I attempted to put it back on track, but have obviously been stymied by a refusal to even attempt a logical, contexual response. Instead, I get outrage at sticking my nose in.
And it was fitz who attempted to use the legal system as a scapegoat for the aggressive behavior that rightfully belongs to the dishonest gay activitst groups. He said we should "blame the courts" for ramming social changes down our throats, when, first, it's the gay activists who are driving the involvement of the legal system, and, second, when the gay activists don't get the results they desire from the courts, they attempt to destroy anyone who disagrees with their agenda...like the BSA. (By the way, I won't go into details on this hard-to-read thread because it's beside the point, but your knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the attacks on the BSA is extremely shallow.)
Anyway, Jason, I suggest you make an effort to carefully read three posts in context: Mrbill's, fitz', and mine. Perhaps you'll get a better perspective.
First of all, RJ, your
February 16, 2008 - 16:50 ET by JasonCFirst of all, RJ, your accusation that I am quoting out of context doesn't hold water. If I were trying to make the case that misterbill was being homophobic or flat-out hated gay people, then sure, you could say I had deliberately taken one paragraph that sounded bad when he had said elsewhere that he respected homosexuals. But that has not been my or fitz' project in this thread. One of the pleasant things about this thread, in fact, has been the general level of civility toward the subject matter (if not one another).
But this thread has been, almost from the get-go, about the element of children in the realm of gay politics and the chicken-and-the-egg element of the courts and gay activism. I find it odd, first of all, that you're so hostile toward my characterization of the BSA incident, in which I come down much with much more harshness against the opportunism of the gay rights activist side; my point about the heterosexual/familial/conservative side was simply that that image of the mincing scoutmaster taking boys on camping trips was (not necessarily unreasonably so) a powerfully influential idea. No one's blaming parents for wanting to protect their own kids.
But as far as misterbill's assertion, which you have endorsed by saying "In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you pretend that
there has been no aggressive and unrelenting attack machine operated
by dishonest gay activists", I think the very obvious and demanding questions are:
1. What overwhelming evidence?
2. If this is the case, is it indicative of homosexuality in general?
3. Do parents have the right to insist that their children never even come into contact with, or acquire knowledge of, anything that the parent considerts other, alien, insidious, harmful, immoral, &c.
This thread is getting out of hand and difficult to read. If people have an interest in continuing, I propose one of start a woodshed forum. Participants at this point in the discussion should be Fitz, Dee, RJ, Misterbill, and myself.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
More deflecting, Jason
February 16, 2008 - 17:25 ET by RJHow many times can i say it? I don't care what your "project" is. Obviously, you're eager to devolve my specific points into your larger argument about homosexual marriage...but I have no interest in doing so. I addressed something specific said by fitz and my interest begins and ends there.
No matter how often you deny it, fitz misrepresented what Mrbill said, and I showed just how he did so.
Are you REALLY naive enough to claim there has been no "aggressive and unrelenting attack machine operated by dishonest gay activists?"
Regarding my reference to the BSA and the courts, you AGAIN try to bring in your larger "project".
Yes, I derisively dismissed your shallow understanding of what has been going on in the "war" against the BSA and why. The ACLU, the activist gay community, and a wide range of leftists are actively and aggressively committed to their destruction. No offense intended, but your characterization of BSA supporters who fear "mincing" Scoutmasters shows how appallingly ignorant you are on the subject.
Hey, RJ, before you come
February 16, 2008 - 14:56 ET by fitzfongHey, RJ, before you come late into this discussion (and half-cocked, as well), you need to get your facts straight. I made a very narrow, very specific statement in response to an observation Jason made. The statement didn't involve you. Dee Bunk challenged my statement with irrelevant tangeants about the effects on children. I responded, and several others who were involved in the thread (Jason, Dee Bunk, balboa and others) continued discussing the issues. Once again, the discussion didn't involve you. Then Mrbill put his two cents in, supporting Dee Bunk who, at this point, seemed to end her involvement. It was at this point that you butted into the conversation, congratulating Mrbill and Dee Bunk for whatever bit of brilliance you thought they added to the discussion. And you accuse me of dodging what you "said in favor of rambling on and on about position statements that have nothing to do with my post"? It's obvious that you haven't been following this discussion from the very beginning, you cut into a thread late and you failed to arm yourself with the proper context. In other words, this discussion isn't about your post. The "position statements" you've ignorantly dismissed are the basis for the thread that you hijacked, and therefore have everything to do with "your" post. Rather than claim that I owe you an explanation for some incoherent "point" you've made (and what was it, again?), you might want to consider learning what this conversation was about to begin with...and come to the realization that if anyone owes anyone an explanation, it is you who owes me.
lol, fitz
February 16, 2008 - 15:54 ET by RJI'm fully aware of the context of the argument. I responded to something you said that was false.
But what a pathetic cop-out you posted. Unable to provide an intelligent answer to my points, you're reduced to yelling "butt out 'cause this ain't your argument, dude." hahaha! Sorry, bud. If you want a "private" conversation, go to the forums or PMs.
BTW, you could at least try to be honest. For the second time, you accuse me of saying something I didn't say. Please show me where I "congratulated" Mrbill or Dee.
With regard to your
February 16, 2008 - 17:31 ET by fitzfongWith regard to your assertion that I accused you of saying something you didn't say, allow me to ammend my statement. Mrbill congratulated Dee Bunk, you merely served as Mrbill's apologist by accusing me of taking his argument "sideways" and by failing to elaborate what about my post did that. Is that more accurate?
You claim to be "fully aware of the context of the argument". Really? What was it, then?
By the way, I never said anything like "butt out 'cause this ain't your argument, dude"...I suggested that if you were going cut into a forum for which you obviously lack the comprehension to make a worthwhile contribution, your "points" and "arguments" are going to appear uneducated and half-baked. Which they are.
And, to reiterate, you've refuted NOTHING.
"amend?" lol, fitz. Is that your non-apology apology
February 16, 2008 - 18:01 ET by RJfor making stuff up? I didn't "assert" anything. You lied and I caught you.....TWICE.
What was the context? haha. In addition to being dishonest, are you reading deficient, too? How many times do I have to say I have no interest in getting involved in your obsession with gay marriage?
You'll have to pardon me, fitz, for thinking that things like "Once again, the discussion didn't involve you" meant I should butt out. Gee, how could I have misunderstood that?
And, fitz, each time you claim my points aren't valid without being able to refute them, you look even more foolish. :^)
No, genius. I made
February 16, 2008 - 18:23 ET by fitzfongNo, genius. I made nothing up. I indulged your need to split hairs over a trivial issue. If your threshold for self-congratulations is that low, I hereby pity you.
Umm, if you have no interest in the topic at hand, why exactly did you cut into the conversation?
How could you have misunderstood? I don't know, perhaps you were socially promoted through school.
And, RJ, the fact that someone so devoid of intelligence as you would condescend to calling me foolish is actually quite amusing.
Unbelievable, fitz. You make stuff up and then claim
February 16, 2008 - 18:35 ET by RJit was me splitting hairs because I caught you in your lies? lololol! Hey, whatever it takes to get you through the night, fitz.
Let me indulge your reading comprehension problems: I responded to a specific thing you said, not to the topic at large. I know that's a tough concept for you to grasp, but give it a try. Maybe you'll surprise yourself. :^)
RJ, you caught no one,
February 16, 2008 - 20:34 ET by fitzfongRJ, you caught no one, least of all me, in any lies. I, too, used to seize on mirages to claim empty victories. Then I turned four. But as we've already established your low standard for a definition of achievement, give yourself a happy face, partner.
So, please RJ, tell me what specific thing I said that got your back up in the first place. That could go a long way towards determining what this is all about.
Mrbill - it was so nice to see your post here after having
February 15, 2008 - 09:35 ET by Dee Bunkto deal with fitzfong and Jason being extremely rude and ignorant towards me. I hope you keep coming back!
These two are just like all the other liberals out there and want to impose all of their beliefs on everyone else. They have no respect for children who have not yet formed opinions and no respect for those of us who have formed our opinions on legitimate reasoning. It's their way or the highway -just because. Everyone else is stupid and shouldn't be listened to especially if they bring up an argument that they can't come up with an answer to. They just stand there with their fingers in their ears chanting "na na na na I can't hear you".
Gee I guess you forgot to
February 15, 2008 - 10:11 ET by JasonCGee I guess you forgot to PM your gossipy little post about myself and fitz. You put it right here where everyone can see it. How embarassing for you.
You are really playing up the victim angle here. Me and Fitz don't care about kids? In what way? Haven't you been agreeing all along that gay couples should be able to adopt? Then you go off on us for suggesting that heterosexual couples aren't inherently the best?
Here's my favorite part: They have no respect for children who have not yet formed opinions.
And yet....(drumroll)....you obviously want their opinions to be formed according to your ideals!
Way to go.
You know Fitz and I both argue fair. Give us a solid argument something besides "They deserve a mother and father" or the implication that we're anti-family, whatever that means, and we'll respond to it.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Gossip? Isn't that something that happens behind peoples back?
February 15, 2008 - 10:32 ET by Dee BunkYou are so clueless about the world and especially clueless about me. I have no trouble telling people what I think to their face out in the open. I'm not a victim and have never been. I certainly won't become a victim of you. You have been rude and obnoxious and STILL have not addressed any of my points. And AGAIN YOU HAVE MIS-CHARACTERIZED WHAT I SAID.
I have agreed that hetero couples are not inherently better and you keep acting like I don't. IT'S NOT THE POINT. They can be equally bad and equally good individually. That doesn't change the fact that children deserve to have a male and female influence as the ultimate situation.
IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE MY ARGUMENTS WITH YOUR FINGERS IN YOUR EARS - I guess you just don't have the intellectual capacity to address them. Are you afraid you could change your closed tight mind and then people might call you a homophobe or imply it like you do to me? You are very weak.
I have agreed that hetero
February 15, 2008 - 10:40 ET by JasonCI have agreed that hetero couples are not inherently better and you
keep acting like I don't. IT'S NOT THE POINT. They can be equally bad
and equally good individually.
So what the hell are we disagreeing about?! Whether gay couples should actually be technically married? That's a pretty minor detail for us to be going at it tooth and nail here. And I don't see what bearing that detail has on the child.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
My goodness, Jason
February 15, 2008 - 10:34 ET by RJ...is this the real JasonC we're seeing today, or did you just forget to take your Metamusil? (Huckabee joke)
In reading the thread, there's an unmistakable pettiness that keeps creeping into your posts today. What's up with that?
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness and who expended all of his engergies on preserving his opinions from contamination." -Michael Chabon, "
Like what? Calling someone
February 15, 2008 - 10:53 ET by JasonCLike what? Calling someone out on misspelling the key term that he's accusing his political opponents of embracing? I'm sorry, but if you can't spell fascism, you probably don't know much about it.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
No, Jason, like the post I responded to
February 15, 2008 - 11:06 ET by RJ...for just one example of what seems to be a theme today....
But now that you mention it, your grammar cop persona is petty, too....little more than a ruse to discount his argument. Seriously, I expect petty from leon and a few others here, but not you.
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness and who expended all of his energies on preserving his opinions from contamination." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
That last sentence is the
February 15, 2008 - 11:20 ET by JasonCThat last sentence is the nicest thing you've ever said to me.
The grammar cop incident was a one-time thing; I don't go around correcting misplaced modifiers and typos (though I am at times tempted). Pesky's misspelling was persistent and reflected a lack of familiarity with what fascism even entails.
I don't know what else you're referring to. I wasn't the one who said "screw you" to another poster in all-caps. I think I was being quite friendly to Dee.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Don't let it go to your head, Jason
February 15, 2008 - 11:29 ET by RJI just meant that your arguing style isn't usually so petty. I still think you're full of liberal crap. ;^)
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness and who expended all of his energies on preserving his opinions from contamination." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
Too late RJ, I'm gonna be
February 15, 2008 - 11:33 ET by JasonCToo late RJ, I'm gonna be glowing all day...
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Oh yeah - I just love when people tell me I pretend to care
February 15, 2008 - 11:39 ET by Dee Bunkabout children so that I can stick it to homosexuals. That's real nice and shows a lot of respect for me.
So floks who sulffer from
February 15, 2008 - 11:39 ET by Jack BauerSo floks who sulffer from dyslexia don't kno wot thay ar tlaking about jst becos thay have difuculti in learng to intapret lettuce and cimbals.
Intrstling.
I don't know where you get
February 15, 2008 - 13:36 ET by fitzfongI don't know where you get the idea that anyone was rude or ignorant towards you. The fact that JasonC., balboa and I have expressed disagreements with your stated premise and that we have challenged you on that premise (respectfully, I believe) certainly doesn't rise to the level of being "rude" or "ignorant" towards you.
But before you start casually waving around accusations of ignorance upon others, you may want brush up on your facts. Contrary to your suggestion above, I am not a liberal and I certainly have no interest in imposing my beliefs on others, least of all you. In fact, I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about people attempting to impose their beliefs on me. I am proud to call myself a conservative, but I think for myself...and I believe the issue of gay marriage is largely a semantic one that both liberals and conservatives (sadly) use to energize their voting bases when more pressing but less visceral issues lack voter appeal. It's at that point that opposing sides up the ante by injecting other "supportive" variables into the argument (i.e. "the children"). And you know what? I think that's disingenuous. If you have an objection to gay marriage on its face, why don't you articulate it? But to trot out a straw man ("the children") to support your argument smacks of desperation...it's a technique used not to bolster one's own argument, but rather to distract one's opponent. Fine, throw sand in my eyes...the temporary discomfort I will experience from having to address a potentially unrelated argument like children will not deter me from getting to the heart of the issue...should consenting adults be allowed to marry? Last I checked, children aren't always part of the equation when it comes to marriage...heterosexual or otherwise. So, of what relevance are children to the discussion of gay marriage? On its face, NOTHING...but that doesn't stop people from imposing children into the discussion to cloud the issues. The way I see it, that's a similar technique to the one that was employed when Michael J. Fox was used by Democrats running for the Senate to misrepresent Republican positions on stem cell research. But where your argument goes completely off the rails is when you suggest that I "have no respect for children who have not yet formed opinions and no respect for those of us who have formed our opinions on legitimate reasoning". Besides being a tortured non sequitur, it's patently false. Look, Dee Bunk, you obviously know nothing about me (I'm sure Jason is still laughing at your characterization of me as a liberal), so don't pretend that you have a clue as to what my motivations are with regard to children. My wife and I may have children in the future, and we will love them with every fiber of our collective beings if we are fortunate enough to have them. But we're certainly not going to use them to advance a political agenda or to shield us from the full impact of "fighting a fight".
Reasonable people can disagree on important issues...I have had my fair share of verbal bloodbaths with Jason. I didn't take you on in the first place, I simply agreed with a point that Jason was making and I added my own viewpoint. But for you to suggest that anyone on this thread was being rude or ignorant towards you suggests that you might have a little bit of a persecution complex. And I'm not about to indulge that persecution complex by having you put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head.
Oh poor misunderstood fitzfong
February 16, 2008 - 15:15 ET by Dee BunkJason is a better liberal than you because at least he finally had the balls to respond to my points which you have yet to.
You are exactly like a liberal on this issue. Close minded with your fingers in your ears thinking everyone who doesn't want Gay marriage has to no respect homosexuals.
Yes reasonable people can disagree - but assuming that all people who are against gay marriage hold their opinion because they think it's equal to marriage with a goat or that they use children as an excuse to stick it to Gay people is NOT REASONABLE. YOU ARE NOT REASONABLE ON THIS ISSUE. You exhibit extreme brainwashed tendencies by completely ignoring everything I've said an turning it into something completely different. Just like the media, you refuse to address the real issues and can only argue the point assuming homophobia in your opponent. It's cheap and disgusting just like race bating.
Close minded with your
February 16, 2008 - 15:28 ET by JasonCClose minded with your fingers in your ears thinking everyone who doesn't want Gay marriage has to no respect homosexuals.
Since I'm already involved in this, I'll just briefly comment that I haven't seen a single instance in which Fitz has said or implied this. The point that we have made about injecting children into the debate is not to suggest that it's done maliciously or with anything but the best of intentions or that it indicates homophobia.
But, I'm certain Fitz will want to reply to these accusations himself, so I'll excuse myself here.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Oh really Jason what about this
February 16, 2008 - 16:50 ET by Dee BunkFrom fitzfong right above
It's at that point that opposing sides up the ante by injecting other "supportive" variables into the argument (i.e. "the children"). And you know what? I think that's disingenuous. If you have an objection
to gay marriage on its face, why don't you articulate it? But to trot out a straw man ("the children") to support your argument smacks of desperation...it's a technique used not to bolster one's own argument, but rather to distract one's opponent. "
Disingenuous, straw man, desperation, distract one's opponent?
Yeah right - The whole point is the Children to me and he's saying that I'm disingenuous, desperate and trying to distract - that is rude and ignorant. Just because he doesn't care about children doesn't mean I can't.
He's also saying I'm not articulating my position even though I have stated it many times and he ignores it. He has not once addressed anything I've said and instead throws Goats and other crazy arguments into it.
First of all, I explained
February 16, 2008 - 17:01 ET by JasonCFirst of all, I explained (and you seemed to accept my explanation) that no one was accusing you of thinking homosexuality was equal to bestiality, but that that is a typical slippery slope argument in this debate (largely thanks to Truthmonger) and that we were relieved that you didn't go there.
Second, the quotation you supply from Fitz is a critique of your rhetorical method and, by extension, a set of rhetorical modes of persuasion that are overused on the topic in general. Fitz is not saying you don't genuinely care about children. Nor am I. We both, I think, believe that you have used rejoinders involving lack of fairness to children and heteronormatively-conceived claims about what's "better" for a child without adequately articulating why gay marriage, in particular, is such a disastrous step.
You're in favor of allowing gays to be parents. Great. So am I. What I don't understand is, if you can allow for that, why can't those gay parents be married to one another? I don't see what this even has to do with the children. This is what I've been trying to ask you all along. Is it because of the symbolism behind it or would the event of them being married cause some sort of harm to the kids? This is why I am particularly confused with what you've said thus far; not only, as Fitz said, do you seem to "trot out" the innocent child trope, but your conclusion doesn't seem to align with it anyhow. Obviously, there is some miscommunication here.
After rereading this, I realize that I may be speaking for or putting words into Fitzfong's mouth. I only did this because the post was about both of us, but Fitz, if I've misrepresented your position, feel free to correct me.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Good point, Dee Bunk. It
February 16, 2008 - 16:47 ET by fitzfongGood point, Dee Bunk. It may have taken you a day and some really deep thought to come to such a sensible conclusion...but credit where credit is due: Jason is a better liberal than I am. But please, if it placates your fragile ego, feel free to maintain your tenuous position that I am still a liberal...even if there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Because really, this is about your comfort. You'll also have to forgive me if I'm not aware of the "points" you were requesting that I address. You were kind of all over the map on this thread, and maybe I didn't read the relevant passage. But I'd be happy to respond to whatever questions you pose to me.
I must also thank you for telling me what I think yet again. I don't remember thinking that everyone who doesn't want gay marriage has to not respect homosexuals. I think I was thinking that I don't quite understand the fuss on the side that is against gay marriage to the concept of gay marriage. I thought I was wondering what the big deal was and why opponents of gay marriage were so opposed to it. But then again, this is about your comfort...so if you say I was thinking what you said I was thinking, you must be right.
So I assumed that all people who are against gay marriage hold their opinion because they think it's equal to marriage with a goat? Well, I'll be! I thought I was commenting on the concept of the slippery slope: someone makes an argument, throws in a red herring (there are those children again!) to deflect from the core issue and really can't substantiate his or her reasoning for taking a certain position. So said someone will make the assertion that the mere acceptance of gay marriage will trigger a series of unintended consequences (I believe the concept of "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" was discussed somewhere on this thread) including new demands for "rights" never before thought possible...where if you don't plug the leak before gay marriage is legal, men will eventually demand the right to marry their goats. The slippery slope. But if you believe I suggested that people who are against gay marriage simply equate gay marriage to a man marrying his goat, you must be correct. Because, once again, it's about your comfort. I also don't remember assuming that you were homophobic because you oppose gay marriage. But...ah, you know the drill by now...it's about your comfort.
But I have to say, I must take issue with your denial that you've used children as an excuse to oppose gay marriage. As the subject line in one of your responses clearly stated:
MARRIAGE IS ABOUT CHILDREN NOT GAY'S AND HETEROS
Please excuse me for taking you at your word.
Because it is about the children - get it through your
February 16, 2008 - 16:53 ET by Dee Bunkthick head. And you are a liberal and acting just like the most radical leftist on this issue - I'm not talking about any other issues
I clearly underestimated
February 16, 2008 - 17:40 ET by fitzfongI clearly underestimated you. You certainly won that round, Dee.
See
February 13, 2008 - 13:58 ET by Tom BlumerThis comment.
I agree, Tom
February 12, 2008 - 14:54 ET by RJWe need to "call out" misrepresentations of candidate's records...so I'm calling you out.
Either out of ignorance or disingenuousness, you misrepresent Romney to the extent that it makes me wonder about your motivations.
For just one example, you judge Romney's handling of the MA economy by, apparently, using his entire term in office. In fact, the economy was in a shambles when he began, and by the time he left it's my understanding he had put it on the upswing.
"Taxes AND fees?" Show me where he raised taxes. Most of the fees he raised hadn't been adjusted for many years and were due for revision...like the ridiculous $20 fee charged to corporations to put an advertising sign alongside a state highway. You can disagree with his method of raising needed revenues by raising individual fees for usage instead of raising taxes on everyone (the way Huckabee did), but many of us disagree with you.
I won't argue he said some stupid things, and he wasn't the perfect candidate, but let's at least keep your evaluation honest.
Being pragmatic, I know I'm not going to get someone who walks on water (in spite of what evangelicals think of that snake-oil salesman Huckabee), so I try to look for the best in the available field. To me it was clear that after Thompson, et al, left, the overall records showed Romney would have been the best candidate for President . Naturally, you'll disagree, and that's fine, but it's hypocritical of you to complain about misrepsenting records and then do the same thing yourself.
If you use
February 12, 2008 - 17:02 ET by Tom Blumera timeline of July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2007, it's not that impressive.
And whatever he may have done for the MA economy is going to be nuked by RomneyCare.
But the point is, Tom, that you misrepresent Romney
February 12, 2008 - 17:16 ET by RJ...and, again, it makes me wonder about your true underlying reasons.
Here's another example of your disingenuous attacks on Romney. Above, you use an anti-Romney link that misrepresents him. An example that I picked up right away is their selective quote about Boy Scouts, which they cut in half. The part they omitted was this: "I support the right of the Boy Scouts to decide what it wants on that issue (homosexuality)."
That's typical of the wide-spread misrepresentation of Romney's record. I'm sure your link is full of them.
So what's your REAL reason for continuing to attack Romney, even though he's dropped out?
Mass Resistance
February 13, 2008 - 01:34 ET by Tom BlumerThe most important element of Mass Resistance's case against Romney, the one I have concentrated my fire on, is the unilateral, extra-consitutional, and oath-of-office-breaking imposition of same-sex marriage in the Bay State.
If there are shortcomings at "The Mitt Romney Deception" outside of that issue, I should and will investigate them if there is a next time for Romney before referring to it again.
So let's conentrate on the one item that makes Romney objectively unfit to hold the office of POTUS, as identified in the first paragraph. This post at BizzyBlog, which I will stand by 100%, shows that what I described in the first paragraph is exactly what Mitt Romney did. And further, he did it to keep a campaign promise he had made to Log Cabin Republicans.
A comprehensive index to Romney's shortcomings is here.
The motivation is simple: We cannot afford the risk of allowing anyone who trashes a constitution, especially the one for the Cradle of Liberty, and breaks his official oath to God as Romney did, anywhere near the most powerful office in the world.
I don't know what you expected, but that's all there is to it.
Romney did not impose Gay Marriage in Mass the Courts Did!
February 13, 2008 - 01:44 ET by PopularTechWhat part of how our government works do you not understand? The Group Mass Resistance are morons who cannot comprehend how government works. They believe the Governor is some dictator who can either write or interpret laws. He can do no such thing. And everyone who keeps bringing it up is simply ignorant.
This is what the courts wrote:
Mitt Romney "Chose" Gay Marriage?
"We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage."
"In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
Romney clearly fought to ban Gay Marriage:
Romney Fights For Marriage Vote (Video) (3min)
2003 - Massachusetts Governor Vows to Pursue Marriage Amendment (USAToday)
2004 - Romney Urges Constitutional Ban on Same Sex Marriage (USAToday)
He even wrote an article on how to do it!
One Man, One Woman - A Citizen's Guide to Protecting Marriage (Mitt Romney, The Wall Street Journal)
Afterwards....
Eleven States Ban Gay Marriage (FOXNews)
Shall I hold a class on Government so all the Huckabee supporters can learn how this works? I mean this is getting ridiculous. All the rabid anti-gay people in fear of homosexuals fell for this and continue to repeat the lie.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Wrong
February 13, 2008 - 09:46 ET by Tom BlumerYour "evidence" is nothing of the sort.
You didn't go to my link, did you? So I'll have to break it down for you here:
A. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in MA doesn't have jurisdiction over issues relating to marriage under MA's Constitution.
B. Even if A is wrong (which it isn't), the SJC decisions are opinions, NOT orders.
C. The SJC could only suggest, NOT order, that the Legislature enact legislation legalizing its opinion.
D. The Legislature never enacted such a law, and no voter initiative has ever gotten on to the ballot.
E. Therefore, Romney was under NO compulsion to impose same-sex marriage. In fact, he was constitutionally duty-bound NOT to do so until a real law was passed by the Legislature. But he did it anyway, and he did it to keep a campaign promise.
Mitt Romney is unfit to be president because he violated MA's constitution by unilaterally imposing same-sex marriage in the state. In the process, he broke his oath of office made before God to uphold MA's constitution.
This isn't arguable, because it all flows from the clear-as-day meaning of Massachusett's Constitution.
How dare you tell me that I don't know how our government is supposed to work. That it's not working that way is because officials like Romney don't do what they're supposed to do at crunch time.
Are you People Born Stupid?
February 13, 2008 - 16:29 ET by PopularTechThe Mass Supreme Court has Jurisdiction over ALL interpretation of ALL laws in the State of Mass including their constitution. If they rule that the constitution does not prevent gay marriage from being recognized as legal then it is legal for gays to marry unless the constitution is amended to explicitly ban this.
They don't have to order the legislation to legalize it if they interpret that it is already legal! Are you people this dumb? It is up to the legislation to explicitly ban it and they gave the legislation 180 to amend the consitution otherwise gay marriage would be legal.
If the Mass legislature or the Federal Government did not ban it, Romney had to acknowledge same sex marriage by the Mass Supreme Courts ruling.
You idiots are unfit to vote since you cannot comprehend how our government works or the law. Please mail in your voter registration cards then go study government and law and put down the bible which is irrelevant to this in every way.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
But Alan Keyes says it, so
February 13, 2008 - 16:50 ET by Conservative VoiceBut Alan Keyes says it, so it must be true /sarc. Who would of thought that the October surprise would of come from Alan Keyes, he lost my respect when he went off on Romney. His focus should of been on McCain, not Romney. I can see Keyes not taking out Huck because of Huck's fair tax and social policies are closer to Keyes, but Romney of the three ( McCain, Huck, and Romney ) was the most conservative, and who did Keyes chose to attack, Romney.
MA Constitution
February 14, 2008 - 04:03 ET by Tom BlumerHere is a link to it.
This is Article V from that Constitution:
Do you see the judiciary in the Article? Neither do I.
A "cause" would include a woman wanting to marry a woman, which was the matter in question in the Goodridge case. By taking the case, the MA SJC violated the plain language of the plain language of the MA Constitution and dared someone to have the nerve to call them out for it. No one did.
You are therefore flat-out wrong on jurisdiction. It is not arguable.
As to a court ruling in an individual case constituting an "order" or a de facto law -- follow me closely here -- that is only true as it relates to the specific case in question, i.e., the two plaintiffs in Goodridge. Until the Legislature passes an actual law implementing what the court can only suggest, the only recourse for gays who want to marry would be to bring a new court case. Yes, the SJC would rule in their favor, and would (again) suggest that the Legislature pass a law enshrining the court's suggestion, but that is, again, as far as it could go.
No bill legalizing marriage between two people of the same sex has ever been passed. No citizen initiative has ever made it to the ballot.
Therefore, to this day, the executive branch has no law giving it authority to give out same sex marriage licenses.
Yet .... Mitt Romney unilaterally imposed same-sex marriage. He not only didn't have the authority to impose it, he had the constitutional duty NOT to impose it, as the Executive Branch doesn't rule by fiat in the absence of an enabling law. By imposing it, he violated the oath of office he swore to uphold before God in January 2003.
Romney in essence dared to have someone call him out for what he did. In the insufferably PC People's Republic of MA, no one did.
In doing what he did, unless he comes forth with a mea culpa for the ages, Romney has proven himself objectively unfit to be POTUS.
Just because the State of MA continues to play a gigantic game of charades as it continues to pass out same sex marriage licenses doesn't change the fact that it has no constitutional authority, and is under no legal mandate, to do so.
I am sorry that you haven't, until now, comprehended how the law and MA's Constitution are supposed to work. Now you should.
Another similar explanation is here.
Spare me the name-calling.
I listen to Hannity on a fairly regular basis
February 12, 2008 - 16:38 ET by IamTinmanand Rush occasionly and I can tell you that all those issues were discussed and Mitt didn't get a pass. The end result though was that they didn't likely place maybe enough emphasis on them for you. Any number of times Hannity simply said that if you look at the issues which he believes are going to be the most important in this election, the war on terror, illegal immigration, and the economy, Mitt has as good a track record or better than the others including McCain.
Sorry, I don't keep up well with Mass politics, California is weird enough.
As long as they play my tune
February 12, 2008 - 12:05 ET by Lame CherryHelprin can be a Conservative all he wants, but the minute he starts ambushing talk radio he has lost the battle in name calling.
For example, I have called Rush Limbaugh out here as much as Roger Hedgecock for their bogus insults about bio fuels which are fabrications as I have explained here time and again. No where though do I stoop to calling people on our side names. I in satire term John McCain, Dr. Strangecain as he indeed loves nuclear bombs and indeed in a rage could use them as he hunts bin Laden with a knife in his teeth from the White House.
I find Helprin distasteful, especially when you can read someone like Victor Davis Hansen who called the Americans out on Iraq,because he found pure racism toward those people in discussions he had with those on the right and left.
As I told Ms. McKinley on her blog sparkle something, John McCain was not coronated. I repead McCain was NOT CROWNED. That does not make him dictator so all right wingers have fall in line and say the king has clothes when he is naked.
Helprin can get over it. The best thing in the world is what Limbaugh is doing as he is pointing out McCain's huge weaknesses which have to be fixed before summer.
I posted here the way to fix this is put Lynn Cheney on the ticket and have explained her attributes. Lynn can take 5% off the Democrat side in gay and female votes.........in election terms that is 10% turn around and a landslide.
I look for ways to work with the system being foisted upon us and to bring in people we can trust and when necessary like Harriet Miers to go to whip and make W do the right thing and then trust sloven Congress to botch things up to stop the wacko amensty crap.
Helprin was a failure. Ronald Reagan never pulled this crap........and as far as Laura being gorgeous and Ann being alligator.........hey I wouldn't kick either one out for eating crackers in bed.
And as Helprin opened the looks insults, males who are pink, skin pulled back and look rather appendage stupid should not be judging people like Ann Coulter on their looks.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
My vote, not my head
February 12, 2008 - 12:15 ET by KC MulvilleIn the Maltese Falcon, Humphrey Bogart roughs up Peter Lorre, and then growls "--and when you're slapped, you'll take it and like it." That line always made me laugh. After all, I may have to accept the slapping, but don't expect me to like it.
McCain has virtually won the nomination, and now his supporters are demanding that conservatives shut up. They argue that they won, so we have to accept it and like it. Well, there are a lot of things I like about McCain. I like his support of the war, and I like his opposition to spending. I like what he says about pro-life issues, but the stem-cell votes disturb me.
But for those issues where we don't like McCain (campaign finance, immigration, etc.), don't even try to keep us quiet. As far as I'm concerned, you've rented my vote, but I still own it.
One of Rush's callers made
February 12, 2008 - 12:26 ET by TruthMongerOne of Rush's callers made a great point on this - suddenly the rino's want loyalty - even though they rarely provide it
And suddenly conservatives don't have a right to our vote - if we don't hold our nose and bow to the McCain the political traitor we're "behaving like 3 year olds" and "taking our ball and going home"
If there's one thing that defines a conservative it is sticking to principles
call it childish, call is selfish, call it crocodillian, call it anything and everything you can desperately come up with, you pathetic rino bastards
when the sand blows away the rocks will still be here - tough sh*t and eat yer heart out ya liberal rino weenies:)
reap what you have sown, etc, etc
If a conservative wants any
February 12, 2008 - 12:41 ET by robert108If a conservative wants any attention from the MSM, he needs to criticize either the President or Rush. Instant headlines!
Creds?
February 12, 2008 - 12:45 ET by owlpelletsFrom the guy that brought us the history making Dole presidental bid.
I always wanted to get into politics, but I was never light enough to make the team.
Exactly owl... You said
February 12, 2008 - 12:55 ET by bigtimerExactly owl...
You said a mouthful!
As I mentioned on another
February 12, 2008 - 12:58 ET by dscottAs I mentioned on another thread, the MSM has put together a strategy to get McCain to believe Conservative votes don't count and aren't necessary to win. So Mr. McCain, do you really believe you can win the general election without us? If you don't think you can win without us, then you need to have a meeting of the minds with our spoke's people such as Rush and Ann.
If you think you can win without us, then be my guest go ahead and listen to Halprin.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
nothing can be done now to
February 12, 2008 - 14:34 ET by TruthMongernothing can be done now to avoid Obama
I intend to enjoy it - somehow
Obama is necessary to shake
February 12, 2008 - 15:28 ET by dscottObama is necessary to shake up things a bit on the Dem side, get rid of the Clintons and their operatives in the MSM which then forces McCain to the right in order to clearly delineate himself. If McCain can embrace the issues, cogently explain why Obama's position is Socialistic, then McCain will find himself on the right with all the support he needs to win the election. In the meantime McCain should not saying about Obama, his primary target should be Clinton.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
I had commented on the same
February 13, 2008 - 02:07 ET by ConservativeRexI had commented on the same earlier. Juan wants to jump into the mainstream, well, he's going to get washed away in it. All of those so called "friends in the media" won't save him, and it'll be too late to call Conservatives to save him, so he's pretty much on his own.
He thinks he can win without our vote? Fine, knock yourself out. We'll get a Conservative for POTUS again. We're not going anywhere.
South Park
February 12, 2008 - 12:59 ET by JWFA little rough but he does have a point. It is the cut & run socialists or John McCain.
All of my favorite guys have now dropped out.
I am a South Park Conservative. Your guy may not always be the one everyone else goes with. It always comes down to the choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche. I am voting for the giant douche, at least he doesn't want to surrender to the Islamofascists.
I agree with him
February 12, 2008 - 13:04 ET by nwahsI agree with him. While Rush Limbaugh is sealing "I told you so"'s in time capsules, we're hemming and hawing toward disaster. Anyone thinking the dynamics are anything like 1976, and a disaster democratic President will lead to a Reagan revolution, is an idiot. While under Carter's bungled Presidency we had a hostage crisis, an assualt on America now would probably dwarf 9-11.We don't have the luxury of Goldilocks whining. "This Republican is toooo soft.."
Limbaugh is blowing this big time. I think, now, he really believes he's intelligent. He needs to wake up and stop sabotaging the Republican party. Do you really want a Democrat President?
Rush isn't sabotaging the
February 12, 2008 - 14:07 ET by bigtimerRush isn't sabotaging the republican party...the party itself is doing a fine job all by it's lonesome.
"the party itself is doing
February 12, 2008 - 14:42 ET by mvfreeman"the party itself is doing a fine job all by it's lonesome."
The voters seem to be nominating someone who will appeal to a wider demographic than just staunch conservatives.
Apparently Romney saw the writing on the wall otherwise he wouldn't have dropped out. If Huck is still in it Romney could have afforded to as well.
mv... Whatever you
February 12, 2008 - 14:44 ET by bigtimermv...
Whatever you say...I'm not going throught he same ol' same ol' anymore.
Numbers tell the story
February 12, 2008 - 16:48 ET by IamTinmanRomney dropped out because he and Huckabee were dividing the conservative vote and with the way the GOP primaries are "winner take all" neither he nor the Huckster could beat McCain. Even now it will be virtually impossible for Huck even though he's doing well in Red states because McCain is doing well in blue states. Unfortunately in November those blue states are going to go democrat and McCain is going to be screwed unless he courts the conservatives.
nwahs, I have bad news for you, pal.
February 12, 2008 - 14:25 ET by R D HelmThe sabotaging of the Republican Party by the RINOs started over twenty years ago, before Ronald Reagan had even left office. The conservatives of the party idly stood by and just watched it happen.
Rush Limbaugh, along with a handful of others, has been warning people about this for years.
And even if McCain does somehow manage to get elected (he has no chance), you will still have a democrat in the White House.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Well it seems everyone but
February 12, 2008 - 14:43 ET by nwahsWell it seems everyone but ditoheads disagree with you. Romney disagrees with you. Huckabee disagrees with you. But of course "they're just job hunting." You go right ahead and support Obama. Have an Obama mania party . Lobby for a Clinton/Obama ticket! Get an Obama rock star button! I don't care - its a free country. Just don't call yourself a Republican. You were never a Republican. You are your definition of a conservative. What that implies is probably known only to you. But you are NOT a Republican.
Can you imagine walking into a fire fight and one of your men tells you, I'm not going to fight because I think this war is heading in the wrong direction? Yea, traitors could change the outcome of a war. But so could loyalists working through less destructive means.
Enjoy your Obama/Clinton campaign. I'm sure those missing limbs from their service in Iraq will appreciate your intellectualizing your desertion of them.
I for one am getting sick
February 12, 2008 - 14:51 ET by bigtimernw...
I for one am getting sick and tired of people like you trying to guilt people like me into voting for a man who has gleefully stabbed conservatives in the back time and time again...
I have nothing but respect for our servicemen, from both sides of my family, some of my friends ect...this is a free country and I won't be pushed of made to feel guilty by this constant reference to us being against the military ect.
I am against a man that has been pushed upon us by the people like Karl Rove, who I also thank for years of not supporting conservative candidates, instead he does the RINO trick, just like McCain is to me...btw, they most likely have planned to get the amnesty bill passed one way or the other with McCain....no matter how you look at it, it most likely will be passed now with any of these pathetic candidates.
I'm not trying to guilt
February 12, 2008 - 15:10 ET by nwahsI'm not trying to guilt anyone. You are who you are. My point is its a very slippery slope when there are good reasons for desertion. As Romney said, this election is not being held in a vacuum. We are at war. You think Limbaugh might have picked a better time to throw a hissy fit.
Rush has never liked McCain
February 12, 2008 - 15:16 ET by bigtimernw....
Rush has never liked McCain for years, you must not listen very regularly...he didn't all of a sudden throw any hissy fit as you put it. I form my own opinions nw, not rush or anyone else does that for me, I didn't get Rush for ten years or any radio for that matter, so that argument just flies, some of us conservatives have minds of our own, and Rush agrees with us.
btw...yes you are using the military to people like me who detests McCain...I resent it very much, you don't know me or my background or my families when it comes to defending this country, let alone fighting and dying for it from the beginning of this country.
bt, you treat this nwahs with more respect than he deserves
February 12, 2008 - 15:54 ET by RJIf we don't support that dishonest, self-serving panderer John McCain, we don't support the military? Only an unthinking, straight-jacketed ideologue, incapable of seeing beyond his own prejudices, would, despicably, try to claim that it indicates a lack of support for the military.
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness and who expended all of his energies on preserving his opinions from contamination." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
Hi RJ....Thank
February 12, 2008 - 15:57 ET by bigtimerHi RJ....
Thank you...this is getting tiring to me...I see it more and more now.
Guilt trips do not work on me.
Been there...done that.
Me either.
February 12, 2008 - 16:20 ET by sarcasmoAs you might imagine, I have years of experience on your end of this same argument. It's not logical, and it doesn't respect YOUR property right in your own vote. If I vote Libertarian or Constitution this time instead of Republican, it's not "a vote for the Democrat." It's a vote against RINOs & socialists just like it's been when I've deployed it in the past. And I'll damn well do it again if I please.
Guys like this soldier, as a matter of fact, have sworn an oath to uphold all of our Constitutional rights to do-so & say we'll do-so. (See? They don't all think-alike, either!)
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
I haven't deserted the
February 12, 2008 - 16:24 ET by Dan The Man 2I haven't deserted the Repulicans they deserted me. For the record I am not beholden to any party and have voted Democrat and third party. We should look at what is at stake and wht we can live with. I for one voted for President Bush twice with clear concience because I knew he was raised by God to guide the USA. I also in 1976 voted for President Carter and Jessie Jackson and Perot in the primaries. When someone votes don't call them names, try to convince them otherwise.
By your rhetoric I would say you are the ditto head. Don't vote party loyalty, vote your core beliefs.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
nwahs, How dare you!
February 12, 2008 - 17:09 ET by R D HelmI have had it up to here with RINOs like yourself questioning my intelligence, not to mention my loyalty to this country, when it comes to not supporting the RINO's hand-picked candidate for the presidency. I voted for George W. Bush in '04 because I allowed my fear of a Kerry presidency override my logical thought processes.
If I had realized then that this man, along with the Republican Party, was in the process of presiding over the doubling in the size and scope of the federal government (and that was my fault for not seeing it), I probably would have voted for Mr. Badnarik, the Libertarian Part's offering (I voted for Harry Browne in '00, as he was the most conservative candidate out there).
Now, the very same GWB who presided over the aforementioned unprecedented growth in the federal government is now trying to convince me that John McCain is a conservative. He, along with the country-club republicans who now control the party, apparently think I should just fall right in line with the RINO herd, question nothing, and just blindly support McCain's candidacy. Sorry, but fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....
Conservatives do not play the class-envy card and vote against tax cuts. Ever.
Conservatives do not vote to have the federal government tell me how far I can go in my support of a political candidate.
Conservatives do not vote to sell this country out to the criminal invaders now swarming across our southern border.
Conservatives do not vote to support the prosperity-killing motives of the enviro-socialists.
Conservatives do not profess support for our efforts in the GWOT while simultaneously working to undermine same.
Conservatives do not play nice with committed socialists like Ted Kennedy.
As for your reference to dittoheads (and I can just smell the contempt dripping from your keyboard as you typed that word), I listen to Rush very rarely, as I am a Boortz listener (who happens to be supporting McCain, btw). However, what little I have heard of what he is saying I am in total agreement with. All he is doing is echoing the thoughts of millions of true conservatives in this country.
This country has been sliding toward the socialist abyss for well over 100 years now. Ronald Reagan managed to slow this advance somewhat, but ever since, the republicans have aided in increasing the speed of the slide.
George Bush I sped up the process with his "no new taxes" pledge, then he promptly hopped in the sack with the dems and produced a tax increase.
The republicans sort of got it back together under Clinton, as they managed to at least stabilize the slide to a limited extent.
Then along came George Bush II, and not only did the republicans increase the speed of the slide beyond the wildest dreams of Bill Clinton, they greased the rails and added more horsepower to the whole works.
If you RINOs really want to know what has brought the once-great GOP to the fix it now finds itself in, instead of blaming us conservatives, I suggest you take a long, cold, hard look into a mirror.
And in the event McCain gets himself elected, and upon finishing taking the oath of office, he runs across the stage and leaps into Teddy's lap, don't come crying to me, as I will not be interested in hearing it.
You did get on thing right. I am not a republican. I am a conservative. And this conservative is through being played for a fool by the Republican Party.
PS-If Huckabee disagrees with me, then why is he still in the race?
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
nwahs... So you would
February 12, 2008 - 14:47 ET by Clear thinkernwahs...
So you would rather Rush lie to us?
The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.
He is lying to you. You can
February 12, 2008 - 15:02 ET by nwahsHe is lying to you. You can work toward conservative values with a liberal Republican who fully supports the Iraq war. You don't need to elect a socialist who supports the immediate withdrawal of all our troops from a strategic region. Rush, and many here, are presenting a false dilemma.
Rush is pushing shock therapy for what amounts to an anxiety disorder. There are other options, albeit not as sensational.
nwahs... Please do tell
February 12, 2008 - 15:09 ET by Clear thinkernwahs...
Please do tell what lies he has told.
Your argument does not hold much water for this conservative. The truth concerning "supports the immediate withdrawal of all our troops from a strategic region" is that it's all talk. I don't care who wins the WH, once they get in office the reality of the situation will set in and they will change their position. Our military will be in Iraq, and other places for quite sometime, regardless who is prez.
Just curious... Do you consider yourself a true conservative?
The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.
Probably not by your
February 12, 2008 - 15:18 ET by nwahsProbably not by your definition as I consider Limbaugh nothing more than a self-promoting pot stirrer. Narcissism is funny for just a little while.
My definition? I don't make
February 12, 2008 - 15:22 ET by Clear thinkerMy definition? I don't make up definitions for conservatism, these definitions have been out there for many years.
I'm guessing it's you that defines conservatism to fit your personal liking.
By the way, you didn't respond to what lies Rush has told you/us.
The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.
I thought I answered how
February 12, 2008 - 17:14 ET by nwahsI thought I answered how Rush was lying to you right after the statement. He's lying to you by presenting a false dilemma. You don't have to vote for a Democrat to stop the Republican party from moving away from conservatism. I'll give you another one - he's lying when he says all that disagree with his priorities are "looking for jobs."
I have no problem with Rush Limbaugh in his role a political satirist, but God must have a weird sense of humor if he chose the symbol of excess to define conservatism.
nwahs... Here's what you
February 12, 2008 - 17:27 ET by Clear thinkernwahs...
Here's what you wrote: "He is lying to you. You can work toward conservative values with a liberal Republican who fully supports the Iraq war."
Your statement after you called Rush a liar is false, so that makes your claim about him lying false also.
How in the world do you work towards conservatism if you put RINO's in office? Splain me.
The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.
Limbaugh isn't lying to
February 12, 2008 - 15:24 ET by fitzfongLimbaugh isn't lying to anyone. Get it into your skulls...it's not Rush Limbaugh's job to get John McCain (or anyone else, for that matter) elected. Limbaugh's job is to express his personal opinions on politics, news and events. The people who listen to him tune in because they like what he has to say...whether they always agree with him or not. It is John McCain's job (and that of the RNC) to get John McCain elected...and he's not going to succeed in his job by simply saying "accept me as I am". That's not good enough.
John McCain essentially
February 12, 2008 - 15:02 ET by fitzfongJohn McCain essentially "won" the nomination by acting like a Democrat. You'll just have to excuse some of us if we're not ready to make a distinction between a McCain Presidency and a Democrat one. Perhaps he and his apologists should start making that distinction.
The real issue is this:
February 12, 2008 - 13:42 ET by c5thenThe Republican party has a small minority that are "staunch conservatives". The rest are moderates and populists. As the Democratic party has moved to the left, so has the Republican party. Many in the Republican party are more interested in "winning" than in the principles and ideals that the Party used to embrace.
The rank and file of the party, the "grass roots" if you will, must decide if having someone with an "R" after their name as the incumbent in the Whitehouse is more important
than nominating and electing someone with actual conservative principles and values.
Yes, 4 years of a Clinton or Obama Presidency might be bad for the country, but the permanent "death" of the conservatives might be much, much worse for the long term health of the country.
I believe that this Presidential election cycle is about whether or not conservatives will stick to their principles and not allow the Media and "pundits" to select their candidate for them, or if they will show the annointed populist John McCain that he is NOT their choice and does not deserve the "Conservative" label that he is desperately trying to wrap himself in. In my opinion, George W. Bush was selected this way in 2000, but he is a bit more conservative than McCain. It seems that the selecters were emboldended by their success and now are trying to see "how far can they go".
If conservatives subordinate their values and ideals to the idea of "just beat the Democrats" then I think that we've lost the war and will be marginalized by the media and the "power brokers" who just want to win, and have no values or ideals (other than the liberals, that is).
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
I don't care why the
February 12, 2008 - 14:18 ET by nwahsI don't care why the elitists of the Republican party are supporting Clinton or Obama. I can't fathom the arrogance that one must have to convince themselves they can manipulate a new conservative movement. I've got a feeling far more "conservatives" are angry at McCain over his immigration program that his fiscal policies. Where in the heck were all you purists when George W. Bush was spending money like a neurotic woman feeling fat? Where were the flames then?
Just do Republicans a favor. Stop calling yourselves Republicans.
nwahs, do us a favor, and stop calling yourself a conservative.
February 12, 2008 - 14:31 ET by R D HelmI stopped referring to myself as a republican years ago. I now refer to myself as a conservative, albeit a really disgusted one.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Same here R D,
February 12, 2008 - 17:15 ET by IamTinmanI have never registered as a republican and frankly lately don't have a clue what republicans stand for. (And don't start with fiscal responsibility because I've got a bad ticker and that would put me over the edge). I voted for Bush II because I think Al Gore was a traitor selling secrets to the chinese and the second time because I'm a vietnam vet and I despise John Kerry. It sure as hell wasn't because he was even close to my ideal. McCain may well get my vote in November, but not as a freebee, and not as a quasi liberal..
The democratic party is undergoing a wholesale reshuffling this campaign, redefining itself and the GOP needs to do the same. The republicans in congress now are the same hogs that wallowed in the Washington money pit previously and they need to get ousted in order for the GOP to get back to its traditional roots.
Tinman,
February 13, 2008 - 00:39 ET by R D HelmFirst of all, thank you for you service to our country.
LOL-And yes, every time I try to equate "republican" with "fiscal responsibility," I get the exact same feeling you do.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
It's you, nwahs, who is no conservative
February 12, 2008 - 17:30 ET by RJ...and you can have the "Republican" label.
For someone who has been registered on NB for nearly a year, you don't know much about posters here. Many of us have been OPENLY disgusted with the fiscal (and other) behaviors of Bush for a number of years.
Helprin is sucking up to McCain
February 12, 2008 - 14:34 ET by R D HelmHelprin is sucking up to McCain because he probably wants some type of a job in a McClinton administration.
The job he will probably be after will be Head Speech Nazi.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Funny how a guy who has a
February 12, 2008 - 14:58 ET by fitzfongFunny how a guy who has a hair "style" akin to Bryan Ferry/Fred Schneider circa 1983 would seize on the term "hairdressers" to describe Hannity, Limbaugh and the like. Perhaps he might want to make an appointment with one of these hairdressers so he can update his look and get some sense smacked into him.
I am still amazed by the arrogance of these Beltway McCain supporters. Their candidate seized the nomination by ignoring and even by being hostile towards the conservative wing of the party...insisting that our party needed to "reach across the aisle" to "get things done". Now that they've secured the nomination and they need our support to have a chance in the General Election (because, ironically, the people they "reached across the aisle" to meet won't vote for McCain in November), they insist that we're the ones that need to sacrifice our principles so that their guy can get elected. Have they ever considered the possibility that they might need to cross back over the aisle to meet us?
Sorry Rich, You're a nice
February 12, 2008 - 16:15 ET by KeithSorry Rich,
You're a nice guy and I like your stuff a lot but this guys got these morons pegged precisely!
" Oh, my heart panteth", someone has actually said what's been on my mind. I agree with every single thing this man wrote, with the minor exception of the "moth- house" thing, which I didn't grasp.
"It doesn't matter that Mitt Romney, suddenly their Reagan, became a conservative in a flash of light sometime last year, or that their other champion, a populist theocrat, is in many ways as conservative as Vladimir Lenin. The task is to stop the devil McCain."
AMEN. Every lie and position switch by the feckless Romney was excused and even CHAMPIONED by some of these moron's as a sign that Romney could be CONTROLLED! Some of the loose nuts on this and other blogs actually posited the theory that Romney's basic incontinence was a PLUS because he'd be too afraid to buck the popular opinion in the party, since he had no real opinions of his own. ROFLMAO!
"But in light of their prospects, conservatives have no room for it. For by their neglectful forfeit they have lost the battles of culture and education, and to remain other than an occult force they must express their beliefs through politics, from which, after November, they may be for a time excluded."
OH, DOUBLE AMEN. I would only add to this, that by their "NEGLECTFUL FORFEIT they have lost the battles of CULTURE AND EDUCATION" and allowed FILTHY Homosexuals to teach our children that PERVERSION is natural. They have allowed hell bound liberals to teach our children that KILLING THEIR BABIES is a GOOD thing so that they can SAVE SOME G'DANGED MONEY! They followed Ronald Reagan even after he MURDERED BABIES IN CALIFORNIA, because he promised them their thirty pieces of silver ! But McCain's a bad guy for wanting to treat the illegals that REAGAN let multiply in our land, as human beings! And what were these "alleged" conservatives doing, while all this was going on? Having orgasms over TAX CUTS! Trading Jesus for filthy lucre! And may they receive in themselves the penalty for their error which is due. Oh, indeed, Amen.
"Conservatism has been dehorsed, because though conservatives rightly seek victory, it has not appeared except in the minds of those suffering from cognitive dissonance."
Yes they do have the ability to fool themselves don't they? And who was the guy who said their first strategy wasn't working and who risked his political capital to get that strategy changed? Oh, Yeah, John McCain, the same guy that won't give them enough tax cuts, and has the temerity to think of illegal aliens as human beings, man, these people SUCK.
"So, rather than playing recklessly with electoral politics by sabotaging their own party ostensibly for its impurity but equally for the sake of their self-indulgent pique, each of these compulsive talkers might be a tad less self-righteous, look to the long run, discipline himself, suck it up, and be a man. And that would apply equally as well to the gorgeous Laura Ingraham and the relentlessly crocodilian Ann Coulter."
OH DOUBLE , TRIPLE AND QUADRUPLE AMENS! As I said before if a DRUG ADDICT is the leader of your movement, what does that really say about your "movement"? It's more like a BOWEL movement! That's what!!!! LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.
Keith
February 12, 2008 - 17:24 ET by IamTinmanI'm afraid that you're going to hurt something if you keep holding in your feelings like this. Just let the pain go and learn to be one with the other aliens in the universe.
Of course they won't read your crap either! Go find another lefty and you can feed off each other.