There is no point in ‘vetting’ potential 2012 candidates this early. Conservatives need to regroup, and to reassert themselves in the Republican party, lest the RINOs take over completely. One thing for sure: The Republican party needs to get state primary rules revamped, to exclude non-Republicans from voting in the Republican primaries.

MrLynn on November 12, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Who are these RINOs of which you speak? Are you aware that there are a grand total now of THREE Republicans representing districts that Obama carried in this election? Meanwhile there are 81 Democrats in districts that Bush carried in 2004.

As far as I’m concerned, we can’t afford to kick anyone else out of this party now. Anyone who is still willing to call him/herself a Republican after this election IS a Republican.

rockmom on November 12, 2008 at 10:06 AM

I’m not in favor kicking anyone out. Here’s what I wrote in the Ted Nugent (”Kill RINOs”) thread:

Stick to the ideals, get charismatic people to articulate them, and people will come. We shouldn’t be talking about drumming RINOs out of the Republican Party, but of making the party a magnet for all who are drawn to conservative principles. If the RINOs aren’t, they will go elsewhere, of their own accord.
MrLynn on November 13, 2008 at 10:21 AM

The Federal government has a very specific duty to insure the country is secured to allow each of the States to create environments that entice citizens to locate to make their business, and the local communityies are responsible for providing the environment that our citizens feel safe to raise their family in.

The role of governemnt is to protect and provide only the basics for our livelyhood – security (military and police), safety (create and enforce realistic safety standards), and infrastructure (road,rail, air). These responsibilities start at the federal level and each segment improved upon at each political level so the states and communities are competing for your support. The community and states that do the best job providing these services win by our choosing where to live an raise our family. Those that do not do a good job will see their populations dwindle or become failed states.

but I *am* opposed to the idea of a higher being creating all creatures of this earth, since that violates occam’s razor.

Cheers,
The Family Guy

peter_griffin on November 13, 2008 at 1:07 AM

It does if one considers the existence of God as unlikely. If one takes it as a given, then it becomes the simplest explanation.

We’d go a long way toward resolving this whole thing if science teachers would say something like this up front: “A lot of people have religious beliefs that purport to explain the creation of the universe and of man. Who knows, maybe they’re right. But we’re going to try to answer the question under the assumption that they’re wrong. If your beliefs cause you to reject this, that’s your business; but science has, at a minimum, found this to be a model that has been useful in developing cures for diseases, hybrid crops, and lots of other useful things. So, whether you ultimately accept the truth of evolution unguided by a divine hand, we’re going to learn that theory.”

I also think it would be good for science classes to at least acknowledge the existence of ID arguments. I know “science” broadly has rejected Behe’s thesis; and though I’m no PhD in Biology, I’m no idiot either, and I’ve yet to see a counter-argument that I found compelling. Maybe I just don’t “get it”, because I don’t have the hard science background, but I seem to see a lot of scientists substituting extreme umbrage for cogent argument. I hear repeated claims that ID is an attempt to “get the Bible into science classrooms”; I’d say it is, at worst, an attempt to demonstrate the plausibility of divine creation, without regard to who the creator, if any, might be. In fact, I know some hard core creationists who are just as virulently anti-Behe as any atheist, because he doesn’t teach a 6000-year-old earth.

Homosexuals are not asking for equality in marriage (they have that), they are asking for a redefinition of marriage.

Send_Me on November 12, 2008 at 9:41 PM

Are YOU prepared to say “anything can be considered marriage”? With the monetary benifits that come with it?

Handel on November 12, 2008 at 10:55 PM

Actually, I’m proposing an UN-definition of marriage, where NOTHING can be (legally) considered marriage. Let the monetary benefits, whatever they may be, be the same for a married couple, a grown son taking care of his mother, two spinster sisters, or whatever. Get the government out of the business of recognizing marriage. Then we can all have personal liberty to make our own choices, without the government (which to some degree represents “me”) giving sanction to unholy unions of any kind. Some people will do things that I think are sinful and creepy — just as they do now.

Look, I’ve been an opponent of gay marriage, and a proponent of DOMA. But at some point we have to realize that Bible believing Christians in this country are no longer a majority. We’re going to lose this, if not now then in the next decade or so. At the same time, we’re headed for a Canadian/European-style “human rights commission” that will decide what is “hate speech” and restrict it. Already in Canada people are being fined for speaking out against homosexuality. We need to start fighting for liberty, so we can at least speak freely, not legal sanction for our religious beliefs. Politics makes strange… well, you know. But we need to start dividing our efforts into POLITICAL efforts — where we will seek liberty for everyone — and CULTURAL and SPIRITUAL efforts — where, like Jesus, we will care for people and urge them not to sin. Consider the woman caught in adultery as an example; Jesus could have brought the weight of the law down on her, but instead he forgave her and — without threat of legal consequence — just said “go, and sin no more”.

God gave people free will, and I just don’t see that we have a right to take it away, as long as they don’t expect me to endorse their actions. Some will accept God; some will reject Him. Our laws won’t change that. Let’s just be sure we don’t lose our free speech trying.

The problem now is that Darwinism has morphed into an extremist or narrow theory that if someone even questions anything of it, they get run out of the universities and vilified like Jews in Nazi Germany or heretics. It still falls short in many areas. It is not scientific heresy
to try to use science to go beyond Darwinism and dig for the truth.

Sapwolf on November 12, 2008 at 10:46 PM

Sapwolf : The reason why we believe Darwinism (or Lamark’s theory, or any theory of evolution) as opposed to intelligent design (an intelligent force created the world) is simple : it’s called occam’s razor: (”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_razor”). If you reread my post, you will see that I have not mentioned Darwinism there, I just mentioned the theory of evolution. Darwinism just happens to have survived the test of time. I am not against debates on the various theories of evolution, but I *am* opposed to the idea of a higher being creating all creatures of this earth, since that violates occam’s razor.

Cheers,
The Family Guy

“Romney is the most qualified and has the most economic experience to be President.”

That is NOT factual – Sarah Palin is!

We’ll have some great people. No doubt. But what are we going to do? Continue to NOT get behind one till its too late (just like we did this time) and get someone who ISN’T THE BEST CHOICE?

Sad to say…we are every bit to blame for our loss as the media is.
Hopefully we’ll learn from our mistakes..

But judging from some of the posts, it looks like we’re still bia-tching about Romney being a mormon.

Dumb…Dumb...DUMB.

Agree 100%. I am an engineer myself, and am saddened to see the irrational side of the “intelligent design” debate as applied to science classes. My wife is a geologist, and one of her students (a top performer, too) said she preferred that they did not teach historical geology because it assumed evolution. Make intelligent design a part of religious classes if you want, but it has no business in science.

Cheers,
The Family Guy

peter_griffin on November 12, 2008 at 5:02 PM

Bingo, that’s what you DON’T want taught in science class: a version of creation that is straight out of the Bible as fact.

That’s a no-go people unless they are simply stating that it is one of many religious-based explanations.

That is NOT factual – Sarah Palin is!

but we need to quit trying to control people’s private behavior. Best thing to do is get government OUT of the marriage-recognizing business altogether.

RegularJoe on November 12, 2008 at 1:28 PM

Simplistic.

Sorry. Its not a matter of controlling private behavior. Its a matter of standards. Everything about the left is about LOWERING STANDARDS.

EDUCATION
BANKING/HOUSING/CREDIT/ MESS
MEDIA

If you say “government OUT of the marriage-recognizing business”…Where ya gonna draw the line?
Why not let someone marry their dog?
Don’t laugh. could happen.
the left don’t care about “marriage”. the left care about degrading marriage.
There are “financial” consequences to it as well.
Are YOU prepared to say “anything can be considered marriage”? With the monetary benifits that come with it?

If not, WHY NOT? And IF you open that pandora’s box, who are you to deny ANYONE the right to “marriage”.

Be it a brother/ sister.
Man and 6 wives.
Woman and her parakeet.

Be prepared for it. It will come.

Not only that – They won by running AGAINST someone who WASN’T EVEN ON THE BALLOT – BOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!

Jindal failed to veto a law in Louisiana that permits the teaching of intelligent design in science classrooms.

I like Jindal, but I’d say he is more inclined to inject his religion into the public sector than Palin is.

Y-not on November 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
That’s a good point, I was not aware of this. Are there other socially conservative pieces of legislation that you guys know he has passed (or not vetoed)?

Thanks,
The Family Guy.

peter_griffin on November 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Guys,

Intelligent Design doesn’t mean the Bible. Get a hold of yourselves.

Book recommendation: “Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael J. Behe.

This is along the lines of what Jindal is referring to.

And anybody that thinks that evolution (broad) or Darwinism (narrow) explains how life came from rocks is a moron.

Why the heck does DNA only use 4 different types of molecules? Science cannot answer that yet. So, why would it be Talibanist to simply ask the question and have students examine the nature of life and its chemical makeup?

The problem now is that Darwinism has morphed into an extremist or narrow theory that if someone even questions anything of it, they get run out of the universities and vilified like Jews in Nazi Germany or heretics. It still falls short in many areas. It is not scientific heresy
to try to use science to go beyond Darwinism and dig for the truth.

Jindal will not inject Intelligent Design into a national election or national policies. He knows it is at highest a state issue.

Another good book or audio book is “What’s So Great About Christianity?” by Dinesh D’Souza. There is a great chapter in there about Darwinism. It also has a great chapter in there about the truth of Galileo for all you knuckleheads who think the Church burned him at the stake for not kissing the Pope’s a**.

Get the truth.

One thing for sure: The Republican party needs to get state primary rules revamped, to exclude non-Republicans from voting in the Republican primaries.

MrLynn on November 12, 2008 at 9:42 AM

This is a MUST before the 2012 primaries. A MUST.

We also need to internalize the blessing that is liberty, and quit trying to withhold it from people we disagree with. I’m a Christian, and believe homosexuality is a sin; but we need to quit trying to control people’s private behavior. Best thing to do is get government OUT of the marriage-recognizing business altogether. We can have those debates in the culture, not the political arena. If we stand for true liberty, a LOT of people come back to our side.
RegularJoe on November 12, 2008 at 1:28 PM

I’m just going to quote Voddie Baucham:

The other issue that is crucial for us to understand is that –contrary to popular belief– homosexuals are not denied equal rights when it comes to marriage. Homosexuals have always had the same access to marriage heterosexuals have. Moreover, homosexuals have been getting married in this country for centuries. We have all heard the stories about gay men and lesbian women who get married for one reason or another. Some have gotten married to ‘hide’ their homosexuality (Rock Hudson, for example). Others have gotten married in denial of their homosexuality. However, we must not miss the point. These people can get married!
The whole Civil Rights argument is a red herring. Think about it, homosexuals claim that they are denied rights in ways similar to blacks in the years prior to the Civil Rights Movement. They claim that this is a “Jackie Robinson” issue. But there is a difference. Black baseball players were denied the right to play baseball. They did not want to add a fifth base, a tenth player, or a fourth strike. They wanted to play the same game! Homosexuals are not asking for equality in marriage (they have that), they are asking for a redefinition of marriage. We mustn’t allow this one to slide as we attempt to offer an apologetic for our marriage position.

You don’t have to be an atheist to know it is bad public policy to teach non-scientific theories in a science class.

Y-not on November 12, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Is it really conservative, though, to give the government the power to decide what is and is not scientific? This is the same thing that gets us stuck with bad environmental policies, is it not?

This is the first asinine thing I’ve heard Jindal say, right after his firm stance on Creationism.

You don’t have to be an atheist to know it is bad public policy to teach non-scientific theories in a science class.

Y-not on November 12, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Agree 100%. I am an engineer myself, and am saddened to see the irrational side of the “intelligent design” debate as applied to science classes. My wife is a geologist, and one of her students (a top performer, too) said she preferred that they did not teach historical geology because it assumed evolution. Make intelligent design a part of religious classes if you want, but it has no business in science.

Cheers,
The Family Guy

Are there other socially conservative pieces of legislation that you guys know he has passed (or not vetoed)?

I don’t know. I just happened to know about this one and key into it because I’m a scientist and former educator.

I still like Jindal and am open to the possibility that there was some purely political reason that led him to sign this bill into law over the objections of many scientific groups (although I don’t know of any), but based on what I know, this decision worries me. You don’t have to be an atheist to know it is bad public policy to teach non-scientific theories in a science class.

Sad, but true.

Jindal failed to veto a law in Louisiana that permits the teaching of intelligent design in science classrooms.

I like Jindal, but I’d say he is more inclined to inject his religion into the public sector than Palin is.

Y-not on November 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM

That’s a good point, I was not aware of this. Are there other socially conservative pieces of legislation that you guys know he has passed (or not vetoed)?

Thanks,
The Family Guy.

the bluest state in the country just struck down gay marriage but whatever

joey24007 on November 12, 2008 at 1:11 PM

True, but my point was that the margin was thin, so by sticking to social conservatism you may be losing out on voters who would have been otherwise responsive to fiscally conservative Republicans.

The Family Guy

At the moment, anybody would seem a lot better than McCain or Huckabee. These 2 did a lot of damage during the primaries.

mariloubaker on November 12, 2008 at 4:01 PM

That’s certainly true. I’m sure McCain isn’t running and I don’t see how having a lame tv show on Fox strengthens Huckabee’s qualifications for POTUS. He has his supporters, but after this election he has a lot of opposition as well. Unless he accomplishes something noteworthy in the interim, I don’t see him as a strong contender in 2012.