care to address sager’s point? that extatic chants, or reccollections of extatic chants, of “jesus! jesus! halleluah!” have absolutely no place in government? considering the hissy fit you all threw about the ellison/koran issue, i think it’s contemptably dishonest to pretend that separating christianity from politics would be a “unique” aim.

The Daily Dish just loves to dish it out against social conservatives. It seems like when Sully Putty has nothing else to write about, he either attacks Brownbackers or even Sam Brownback himself.
When all else fails, take it out of context:
“Al…

Riehl World View

Andrew Sullivan doesn’t seem much interested in allowing reasonableness to keep him from being the fool that rushes in these days:I suppose it is worth noting that Sam Brownback’s recitation of the “All for Jesus” line is a quote …

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

Reminder – Buy water/liquid proof keyboard.

jdkchem on August 13, 2007 at 6:58 PM

I learned the saran wrap trick during some of my early perusals of DK, DU, HP, etc.

Took me a while to get used to the hysterical hysteria.

I’ve now built up a tolerance, but must still take the abovementioned sites in small doses.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. On principles, there shouldn’t be a conflict or at least not very much of one. The problem is, Sager and a small subset of the libertarians and many more on the left see any Christian influence on politics at all as creeping theocracy. It’s silly and more than slightly paranoid, but that’s what he thinks and that’s where the conflict comes from.

I recall that history.

Bryan on August 13, 2007 at 10:36 PM

>
Good. Then perhaps you’ll also recall me saying that I see no real conflict between being a Christian and being a libertarian — or, if you prefer the term, “small-government conservative.”

The basic conservative argument in national politics is that the federal government has overstepped its proper constitutional limits. Reducing the size and scope of the federal government is something that all real conservatives (and real libertarians) agree on.

So where is this titanic struggle between contending factions, except in the imagination of people like Sager?

Ali-Bubba on August 13, 2007 at 8:42 PM

Well judging from comments here, most people still haven’t heard of him, but yeah, I recall that history.

So take his reporting this election season with a massive grain of salt.

Really? You mean, the MSM will distort, lie, obscufate, twist and take comments out of context?

Geez. And to think I just sprang for FIOS so I could get more channels.

Still, Sager is very young, and we can hope that the years will beat some of the insufferable arrogance out of him, and beat some common sense into his thick skull. He is an urbanite who doesn’t understand rural people, a Northerner who doesn’t understand the South, an elitist who doesn’t understand populism, and an atheist who doesn’t understand Christians.

I don’t listen to the MSM ever.

I don’t know what duration he currently wants for the moratorium but in a bill he offered a few years ago it was five years.

So he’s more than just pro-enforcement–he also wants to tighten the legal system, whereas many sincere pro-enforcement advocates would prefer a “wide gate”.

All that said, you’re still right that Sager’s description is unfair and I think disengenuous. Certainly Sager’s faction likes to bleed the anti-immigrant label onto anyone who shares Tancredo’s anti-illegal stance. In bad faith, they dont like to dwell on other reasons people might oppose unlawful migration.

Also, the whole “anti-immigrant”/”anti-immigation” concept is dubious even in good faith, because almost no one considers that immigration policy, like most things in life or government, doesn’t have to be exactly the same at every point in history and under all circumstances. Being anti-war in 1917 doesnt mean you’re going to be anti-war in the 1941. And being pro-war in 1941 doesn’t obligate you to be pro-war in 1950.

Likewise, being lamentably strict about intake now is prudent because of the reckless, lawless intake of the last forty years. But forty years ago being open to high immigration was more sensible (even though it wasn’t enacted sensibly!) because we’d been through a long digestive pause and were ready for more. Hopefuly that will be the case again someday but it ain’t now.

Anyway I suspect Tancredo’s position is a lot more popular among the public than even many high-wall/wide-gate types realize, since so many of the problems of illegal migration still exist with the legal kind (wages, social services, language, etc).

Mr. Romney promised not a chicken in every pot, but “a button on every computer” for parents to block obscene material.

Ok, so did Mitt actually say something akin to this? That’s bad news.

Krydor on August 13, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Krydor – Why is that “bad news”? What is wrong with giving parents the ability to … you know … parent? Sounds pretty much like the V-Chip (or whatever it is) for Television, where parents can block certain TV shows and channels from their kids’ viewing. Only this would be for the computer.

Isn’t that goal better than trying to force certain TV shows off the air and certain websites off the web?

Well, if we all try really hard, and get really upset over this nobody, maybe we can give him a new career the way conservatives helped bring Rosie back from the all you can eat buffet dead.

They’re a feisty bunch, not always fair, but consistent.