Quotes of the day

posted at 10:40 pm on November 25, 2008 by Allahpundit

“Whatever she once was, Ms. Parker is certainly not a conservative anymore, having apparently realized it’s a lot easier to be popular among your journalistic peers when your keyboard tilts to the left. She writes that ‘armband religion’ — those of us who ‘wear our faith on our sleeve,’ I suppose, or is it meant to compare socially conservative Christians to Nazis? — is ‘killing the Republican Party.’ Lest readers miss the point, she literally spells it out. The GOP’s big problem? G-O-D.

N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E.”

*
“How can the Republican Party rebound? The first step would be to quit letting Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham set its agenda.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

TheBigOldDog on November 26, 2008 at 10:12 AM

Sorry but I disagree with that statement. I have only been at HotAir since the primaries but there are plenty of conservatives here. I have always been a conservative and a person of faith but I too back away from the debate of who is a better of either. It is counter productive and pretty presumious.

Cindy Munford on November 26, 2008 at 10:55 AM

right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Give it up.. You caught him with his pants down, he jerked them up before he was finished and pee’d himself right here in the forums. Let him change his panties in peace.

Mark Garnett on November 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Thanks for the post…you don’t have to make false claims to have a belief that others don’t share.
The “Christians” have done so little wrong, and so much right that the argument that “Christians” are out to get you, or want to “force” you into believing is ludicrous.
I have run into conservatives, liberals, more aggressive then most any Christian…not that some Christians are over the top. But most work side by side with you everyday.
Like I said, Sears works harder at changing my mind, then most any Christian does.
Your past perception carried phrases like:
They want to ban science
God tells me what to do
and other such nonsense…I have no idea what you draw your strength from, but I suspect not always from you, yourself. Maybe a great companion, spouse, maybe a kinship with a hunting dog, whatever, most of us have other relationships. Christians just add Christ to that list.

right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 10:59 AM

Give it up.. You caught him with his pants down, he jerked them up before he was finished and pee’d himself right here in the forums. Let him change his panties in peace.

Mark Garnett on November 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM

Great advice, thanks for chiming in…he can wallow in his poor posting and yell at the mirror that he is right.

right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 11:00 AM

right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 10:59 AM

eloquently put r2b

thomasaur on November 26, 2008 at 11:04 AM

“I ain’t no ways tired” said the democrat politician in a church down south. It seems like the only time democrats go to church is when they are campaigning or when there are cameras around but they do use these churches like advertising agencies.

Obama spent most of his time in South Carolina in various churches but now that he’s elected, he has not gone to church at all! Hypocrites!

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:04 AM

Your past perception carried phrases like:
They want to ban science
God tells me what to do

Among others. Granted, I have had a number of arguments with people on this site about the state of the science, but that actually doesn’t impact this discussion.

and other such nonsense…I have no idea what you draw your strength from, but I suspect not always from you, yourself. Maybe a great companion, spouse, maybe a kinship with a hunting dog, whatever, most of us have other relationships. Christians just add Christ to that list.
right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 10:59 AM

I’m just stubborn, and have an unsupportably high opinion of my self.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Obama spent most of his time in South Carolina in various churches but now that he’s elected, he has not gone to church at all! Hypocrites!

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:04 AM

“Every Sunday eleven o’clock service”

~Barack Obama regarding Trinity United Church of Christ.

BKennedy on November 26, 2008 at 11:06 AM

According to the reporters following Obama, he hasn’t been to church since the election.

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM

right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Tell you what, I’ll link to the google results when you type in “I believe God wants me to be president,” but first I really have to know if you have no idea who said it.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM

According to the reporters following Obama, he hasn’t been to church since the election.

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM

I begin to suspect that one of the differences between Mr. President Elect and myself is that I will not pretend to believe to widen my social circle.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:14 AM

Tell you what, I’ll link to the google results when you type in “I believe God wants me to be president,” but first I really have to know if you have no idea who said it.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Contextual error. It seems to me that he is working on the common christian premise that what happens is God’s will. As they say, your mileage my very.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:18 AM

And B, if you really believe that religious rhetoric is what has been the failing of the Republican Party, you really don’t know Southern Democrats. They are as devout and verbose as any. And they are swayed by and vote for Conservative Republicans.

hawkdriver on November 26, 2008 at 9:17 AM

Perhaps that is true. But tell me, do you expect to control congress or hold the White House with only the south?

You don’t have to give up on social conservatism just defer it to the states. Quit trying to legislate morality from Washington. Run on true fiscal conservatism. Lower taxes, less governement, less spending, and a strong defense and those independents will come over in droves. The only thing the liberal party will be left with is the Peta, Sierra club, Code Pink extremist types.

Socmodfiscon on November 26, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Bingo! Federalism conquers all.

———————————

Social Conservatives:

Until you stop defining “conservative” as “christian” the right will not be united. You have to choose: isolate yourselves from everyone not a member of your church or unite with others that hold similar views to yours on a majority of the issues against those that oppose virtually everything you believe in.

That’s not moral relevance, cowardice, or surrendering. That is the only way you can get a majority. And without a majority you can’t win an election.

So you have to choose: christian fascism and defeat or an alliance with Libertarians & other faiths and victory.

Federalism is the way, not Roe vs Wade or gay marriage.

Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Contextual error. It seems to me that he is working on the common christian premise that what happens is God’s will. As they say, your mileage my very.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:18 AM

That’s a stretch. I don’t want to give away the ending for r2b, so I’ll leave it at that.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM

To all of you that criticized me for voting for Baldwin:

This is exactly why. Because the Republican party is now run by a bunch of fake-neocon wastes of air (Fiorina, Bernanke, Duncan, Graham, McCain, Noonan, etc.) that are just as dangerous as the radical, psychotic, freedom-hating Liberals. This isn’t an isolated incident.

It’s bad enough that the liberals have led a witchhunt against Christians, now the Republican Party is joining the witchhunt. I believe there’s a term for that……

Judas. Parker and her lot.

leetpriest on November 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Count to 10: You aren’t a politician, probably.

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:24 AM

RightOFLeft: Why rely on a quote taken out of context to try and prove your slander?

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:29 AM

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:24 AM

The quote reminds me of Palin’s “pray that it is God’s plan” remarks.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM

I can’t believe I read the whole thread….

Our Founding Fathers created a rather unique Government, and had to make compromises to do so…

The major compromise was that the Federal Government would limit its powers, and the STATES could then decide their own Social Policy… the Feds were supposed to stay out of it.

Bring that to our current time and we have Fiscal Conservatives (inlcuding Libertarians) and Social Conservatives.

Social Policy was brought to the National level by the ursuption of powers inherent in any Government. Led by Democrats, but supported by Republicans, both sides wished to control the agenda… at the National Level. You can’t talk about the Great Society, without also taking a look at Bush’s Compassionate Conservatism…

NEITHER party is has a serious platform of States Rights and Powers… and limited Federal Government as outlined in the Constitution…

You will NEVER get Libertarians to elect a true Bible Thumping Social Cosnervative (I’ll admit, Huck scared me), but you can make a Grand Alliance to get this country back to its founding principals…

Small Federal Government with Limited Powers… leave the rest to the States… Rescind the Amendment that made the Senate a popularly elected office instead of that House representing the States themselves at the Federal Level… Rescind the War Powers Act unless its a direct attack on America herself…

Right now those who call themselves Conservatives are divided, because we are fighting over our divisions, instead of working on what we agree on…. and we see it in the overblown namecalling and rhetoric on this very site…

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM

Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM

LOL… great minds… beat me to it while I was writing…

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM

To all of you that criticized me for voting for Baldwin:

This is exactly why. Because the Republican party is now run by a bunch of fake-neocon wastes of air (Fiorina, Bernanke, Duncan, Graham, McCain, Noonan, etc.) that are just as dangerous as the radical, psychotic, freedom-hating Liberals. This isn’t an isolated incident.

It’s bad enough that the liberals have led a witchhunt against Christians, now the Republican Party is joining the witchhunt. I believe there’s a term for that……

Judas. Parker and her lot.

leetpriest on November 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM

They are not as dangerous.
The problem is that they are only marginally better, and that margin wasn’t enough to offset the pandering.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:32 AM

Social Conservatives:

Until you stop defining “conservative” as “christian” the right will not be united. You have to choose: isolate yourselves from everyone not a member of your church or unite with others that hold similar views to yours on a majority of the issues against those that oppose virtually everything you believe in.

That’s not moral relevance, cowardice, or surrendering. That is the only way you can get a majority. And without a majority you can’t win an election.

So you have to choose: christian fascism and defeat or an alliance with Libertarians & other faiths and victory.

Federalism is the way, not Roe vs Wade or gay marriage.

Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Sorry neocon-sellout friend, If you ask me to choose between God and a country that’s used me, then thrown me to the side after they got what they wanted out of me without fixing a shoulder that was destroyed in the line of duty defending said country, I’ll side with God every time.

Perhaps you guys and the liberals should consider seceding so you can “unite(sellout)” or whatever.

leetpriest on November 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM

LOL… great minds… beat me to it while I was writing…

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM

Ah, but you were more eloquent.

Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 11:34 AM

RightOFLeft: Why rely on a quote taken out of context to try and prove your slander?

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Slander? Those were his exact words as quoted by a friend of his. And there is no context that can detract from the breathtaking hubris of that statement.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Sorry neocon-sellout friend, If you ask me to choose between God and a country that’s used me, then thrown me to the side after they got what they wanted out of me without fixing a shoulder that was destroyed in the line of duty defending said country, I’ll side with God every time.

Perhaps you guys and the liberals should consider seceding so you can “unite(sellout)” or whatever.

leetpriest on November 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM

So let me get this straight:

You want me to support your unconstitutional imposition of your religion upon the entire nation?

Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 11:36 AM

They are not as dangerous.
The problem is that they are only marginally better, and that margin wasn’t enough to offset the pandering.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:32 AM

That brings up the age old question, is the enemy of my enemy my friend?

I’d say not in this case.

leetpriest on November 26, 2008 at 11:36 AM

I believe the media, in general, has set the narrative. Conservatives are generally religious or more religious than not but belive in less government, fiscal responsibility, etc….

The media knows that we are not against gays, but against gay marriage. They know we don’t want women to die in childbirth but don’t want to kill babies. They know that most of us don’t care if they go to church or not just don’t keep us from celebrating our religious beliefs.

We could all get along if they didn’t kill babies, redistribute our property and tell us that we are racist.

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:37 AM

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM

I would say that the last nail for states’ rights was the Civil Rights act.

In reality, the social conservatives’ concerns are states rights concerns–they want the freedom to act morally on the local level. But that idea was so tarnished by racism that it is not sold as states rights, and the media is perfectly happy to report it as theocracy.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM

The quote reminds me of Palin’s “pray that it is God’s plan” remarks.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM

Which were ham-handed in their own way… but, really, it’s completely obvious that he meant what he said.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 11:39 AM

You want me to support your unconstitutional imposition of your religion upon the entire nation?

Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 11:36 AM

No, he wants you to support him in fighting against the unconstitutional restriction of his religion across the entire nation.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:41 AM

The quote reminds me of Palin’s “pray that it is God’s plan” remarks.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM

Which were ham-handed in their own way… but, really, it’s completely obvious that he meant what he said.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 11:39 AM

Did you see the whole context? I saw little ham-handedness there.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:43 AM

Sorry neocon-sellout friend, If you ask me to choose between God and a country that’s used me, then thrown me to the side after they got what they wanted out of me without fixing a shoulder that was destroyed in the line of duty defending said country, I’ll side with God every time.

Perhaps you guys and the liberals should consider seceding so you can “unite(sellout)” or whatever.

leetpriest on November 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Sir; sorry for your problems, but we are not asking anyone to chose between God and State… however its a simple fact that Religions don’t agree, and running on religious rhetoric or a religious platform is divisive.

And… Um… Federalism is almost the opposite of what the NeoCons want… they want MORE Federal Power, not less, as shown by Bush’s greater incursions of Federal Power into Education with the “No Child Left Behind” Act, and his approving of the Federal takeovers of many banks during this economic crises.

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Morton Kondracke is clueless about what the GOP needs to do. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham do not set the agenda, if they did we would have control of House, Senate, and the Presidency. People listen to them because they are right. The difference between Republicans and Democrooks is not right and left, it’s right and wrong. Senators calling themselves Republican and then failing to support what is right is why the GOP has problems. Obama won because he lies and too many Republicans can’t stand McCain and didn’t show up to vote.

ironmonk on November 26, 2008 at 11:45 AM

TheBigOldDog on November 26, 2008 at 10:12 AM

Sorry but I disagree with that statement. I have only been at HotAir since the primaries but there are plenty of conservatives here. I have always been a conservative and a person of faith but I too back away from the debate of who is a better of either. It is counter productive and pretty presumious.

Cindy Munford on November 26, 2008 at 10:55 AM

Give it time Cindy. You’ll learn (my favorite female name btw…)

TheBigOldDog on November 26, 2008 at 11:45 AM

RightOFLeft: Your slander is the generalization you are doing. You are equating one comment with everyone. I do not believe that God wants me to be President, trash collector or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle. My faith is as deep as most anyone. Again, quit taking comments out of context to try and proove a point.

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:46 AM

And… Um… Federalism is almost the opposite of what the NeoCons want… they want MORE Federal Power, not less, as shown by Bush’s greater incursions of Federal Power into Education with the “No Child Left Behind” Act, and his approving of the Federal takeovers of many banks during this economic crises.

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Not me. How are you defining neo-cons?

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM

The quote reminds me of Palin’s “pray that it is God’s plan” remarks.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM

To put it another way, if he had said that he “prays that it is God’s plan that I’m elected president,” I wouldn’t have bothered quoting him (just as I didn’t quote Palin).

Speaking of Palin – Without 20 years of of the religious right’s rhetorical excesses, the media wouldn’t have been able to smear her so easily for her private religious beliefs.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM

So let me get this straight:

You want me to support your unconstitutional imposition of your religion upon the entire nation?

Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 11:36 AM

First off, the Constitution dictates the reach of the Federal Government. If your state wants to legalize this, let it be a state problem. By placing something in the Federal constitution, you are forcing people across this country to believe as you do.

Read the Constitution, friend. Rights are God-Given, according to the Constitution, not man-given. Protection of God’s interest is implicit in every described right of the constitution. If you don’t read it that way, perhaps you require sharpening of your English literacy.

Aside from this, Since science has thus far failed to distinguish the beginning of the life cycle, you seem to think that we should establish destruction of life as the default, rather than protection thereof. Just because you don’t have proof of where life begins doesn’t grant you the license to destroy a life at any point in conception as the default action. How twisted is your brain to default to killing rather than protection?

As far as gay rights. Again, science has not proven that persons are born homosexual. Paired with this, and the obvious reproductive parts and purpose of intercourse, any moron can see that heterosexuality is the only natural form of sexual relation. This is the most basic of knowledge. The constitution states nothing about being modified to protect a personal choice in sexuality. It states nothing about redefining a union such as marriage, and states nothing about forcing people accept the homosexual ideology.

I don’t know what country you live in, but I live in the United States, a place where I can leave a state to go to another state if I don’t like the laws of the state I currently reside in. The more that you people edit the constitution, the less that this becomes the United States of America, and the more it becomes the Federal Union of America.

leetpriest on November 26, 2008 at 11:51 AM

RightOFLeft: Your slander is the generalization you are doing. You are equating one comment with everyone. I do not believe that God wants me to be President, trash collector or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle. My faith is as deep as most anyone. Again, quit taking comments out of context to try and proove a point.

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:46 AM

I offered it as an example that fits a larger pattern of Republicans mixing religion and politics. It was completely fair and accurate; it was, at the very least, within the bounds of reasonable disagreement.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 11:53 AM

The only rhetorical excesses I know about were reported by the media and probably taken out of context! See the vicious circle we get into here? That’s why I don’t believe most of what is reported until I have other sources to back it up. There is such a divergence of opinion here at HA and that is why I use this site!

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Will these people ever wake up and admit; on this last election we had a RINO as our canidate “not even close to being a true conservative” AND WE GOT OUR ASS KICKED!
If we would have listend to Rush and nominated a TRUE conservative we could have won!
Let’s stop listening to these pundits “actualy they are moderates RINO” the reason we are in the position that we are in, is we have LOST our true conservative “Reagan like”
ways!
DITO’S!

time2taketheglovesoffGOP on November 26, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Not me. How are you defining neo-cons?

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM

NeoCons started out by being interventionist to promote Democracy worldwide as the panacea of all ills… believing, erroneously, that Democracys are more stable, and do not start wars.

Problem is that to support that philosophy, you needed to be able to control the agenda at a National Level… thus, needing more power and control from the Fed Gov.

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Sir; sorry for your problems, but we are not asking anyone to chose between God and State… however its a simple fact that Religions don’t agree, and running on religious rhetoric or a religious platform is divisive.

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 11:44 AM

As an American, I have every right to insist that leaders that I elect represent my views, regardless of what religion I am. As a voting American, I have every right to complain when a leader that is elected does not represent my views, especially if I did not vote for them.

As a combat veteran of this country, I have EARNED the right to become disgusted with the direction of the country, especially if I feel that it is moving away from what my blood was spilled to defend.

leetpriest on November 26, 2008 at 11:56 AM

No, he wants you to support him in fighting against the unconstitutional restriction of his religion across the entire nation.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Exactly on point!

leetpriest on November 26, 2008 at 11:59 AM

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Google doesn’t do a good job of finding the context of the original quotation, but I did find a version that included a “but if not, that’s okay” as a follow up.
And it in not 20 years of rhetorical excesses from the religious right that are the problem here, but 20+ years of media demonisation.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:59 AM

RightOFLeft @ 11:53 AM
Completely accurate but not fair. It wasn’t the whole statement and the half-sentence you quoted was hearsay!
Not only hearsay but no explanation of the “context” of the conversation.

Yeah, I’ll concede that it is within the bounds of reasonable disagreement.

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 12:01 PM

NeoCons started out by being interventionist to promote Democracy worldwide as the panacea of all ills… believing, erroneously, that Democracys are more stable, and do not start wars.

Problem is that to support that philosophy, you needed to be able to control the agenda at a National Level… thus, needing more power and control from the Fed Gov.

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 11:56 AM

No you don’t–its just a foreign policy thing. Though having a friendly media would help.
Now, this is not to say that some of the promoters of the idea don’t still have socialist and centralist baggage, but it is not inherently embedded in the idea.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM

Learning to communicate your principles to people who disagree with you is very different from changing your principles

So is Rush speaking hungarian?

peacenprosperity on November 26, 2008 at 12:04 PM

As a combat veteran of this country, I have EARNED the right to become disgusted with the direction of the country, especially if I feel that it is moving away from what my blood was spilled to defend.

leetpriest on November 26, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Yes you have… and as a Combat Veteran of this Country MYSELF, I have the right to tell you that in this country, TODAY, your rhetoric will turn OFF more voters than it will turn on.

I’m not calling for you to disavow your beliefs… but I am saying that we will be more effective working towards a system we can agree on, than by going out of our way to piss allies off.

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 12:06 PM

And he said, “I believe God wants me to be president, but if that doesn’t happen, that’s OK. I’m loved at home, and that’s more important. I’ve seen the presidency up close and personal, and I know it’s a sacrifice, not a reward. And I don’t need it for personal gratification.”

The meaning is completely unchanged. There’s no point parsing words, though. I haven’t seen any reason to change my interpretation, and I doubt I can say anything to change anyone else’s.

(from the transcript of a Meet The Press interview with Richard Land, linked from http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2004/12/god_wants_me_to.html)

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 12:08 PM

I’m not calling for you to disavow your beliefs… but I am saying that we will be more effective working towards a system we can agree on, than by going out of our way to piss allies off.

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 12:06 PM

It would help if the allies stopped going out of their way to get pissed off.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 12:09 PM

And he said, “I believe God wants me to be president, but if that doesn’t happen, that’s OK. I’m loved at home, and that’s more important. I’ve seen the presidency up close and personal, and I know it’s a sacrifice, not a reward. And I don’t need it for personal gratification.”

The meaning is completely unchanged. There’s no point parsing words, though. I haven’t seen any reason to change my interpretation, and I doubt I can say anything to change anyone else’s.

(from the transcript of a Meet The Press interview with Richard Land, linked from http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2004/12/god_wants_me_to.html)

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 12:08 PM

You don’t see it? That full quote implies that he believes God is asking it of him, not demanding it of the nation.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 12:11 PM

No you don’t–its just a foreign policy thing. Though having a friendly media would help.
Now, this is not to say that some of the promoters of the idea don’t still have socialist and centralist baggage, but it is not inherently embedded in the idea.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM

Inherent in the idea? No, not really, but it is a logical conclusion to their aims.

In order to support overseas NeoCon Adventurism, the Fed Gov has to keep expanding its power. It would never have been possible to go to War in Iraq if we had still been a Republic on the Federalist model. A Central Powerfull Federal Government is a prerequisite of foreign interventionism.

Whats really interesting about the NeoCons, is their basic actions give lie to their stated premise… ie, that Democracys are stable and don’t start wars… and yet NeoConism, from a Democracy, has started TWO wars and is threatening at least THREE others…

But thats for another thread…. LOL…

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM

RightOFLeft @ 12:08PM
Pretty humble comment in my opinion. Everyone says that the President is not a sophisticated speaker until they want to use his words to proove a point they are trying to make.

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM

The only rhetorical excesses I know about were reported by the media and probably taken out of context! See the vicious circle we get into here? That’s why I don’t believe most of what is reported until I have other sources to back it up. There is such a divergence of opinion here at HA and that is why I use this site!

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:54 AM

I think media bias is a legitimate issue. I try my best to be objective, and I think conservatives get a raw deal, there’s no question. But not everything the media reports is a conspiracy to destroy conservatism. Some of it, most of it even, is true. Sincere question – haven’t you ever thought that a Republican was trying a little too hard to establish his evangelical street cred?

Is it possible, in theory, for the Republican Party to mingle too much religion with its politics? If you answer yes, I don’t see how you can be upset with people like K. Parker (or even little old me) for raising the possibility that Republicans have gone too far.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Rights are not granted by God, but rather by force of arms. God didn’t free America from the English Crown, men did. God didn’t free the slaves, soldiers did. God didn’t defeat the Nazi’s, or the Communists- patriots did.

That in no way calls into question the existence or motives of God, only that men do evil upon one another and God judges. As mortals, we should allow God to enforce his laws and not delude ourselves into believing we can do it for him.

Look at it this way, abortion and homosexuality are sins yes? And if a child is murdered by abortion, what happens? Does God damn the innocent to hell for the sins of another? You may believe that (that’s not an accusation), but I do not. If there is a God he must be omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient but above all he must be JUST. Where is the justice in damning a child that never even drew breath to eternal torture? Does it not make more rational sense that such a Deity would welcome the spirit of a murdered child into his realm? Therefore, if a child is murdered by abortion then the child goes to heaven, directly to heaven (do not pass go, do not collect $200). Only the murderers will be punished by God, and since he sees and knows all he is in a much better position to do so.

Now how about Bob banging Billy? That’s a sin, yes? But who will be called to account for this sin? Will Bob and William get a free pass if they were imprisoned here in the mortal realm? If they are never caught on earth will they slip into heaven unnoticed?

I don’t think so.

So my conclusion is this:

Let God judge and punish those that break his divine laws and let men judge and punish those that break man’s laws.

I live in the United States, a place where I can leave a state to go to another state if I don’t like the laws of the state I currently reside in. The more that you people edit the constitution, the less that this becomes the United States of America, and the more it becomes the Federal Union of America.

leetpriest on November 26, 2008 at 11:51 AM

At last we have common ground!

I don’t support abortion. I don’t support gay marriage. And I can’t stand the idiots that get all bent out of shape when somebody says “Merry Christmas” in a public place.

I fully support Federalism. If California wants to ban guns and legalize abortion, let them! If Massachusetts wants to socialize their entire state, let them! If Utah wants to establish Mormonism as their state religion, let them! But let’s not have New York tell Arkansas they must legalize abortion. Let’s not have Georgia ban prostitution in Nevada. Let’s not have Vermont define marriage for Florida.

Freedom is ensured by Federalism. Local control of spending and social issues is a winner because even people on the Left will be attracted to the idea. Once the social issues are brought back tot he states rather than hung up in the courts we’ll both have what we want.

But the path to that goal is not to stand here banging our collective heads against Roe vs. Wade. The winning strategy to achieve this is to pursue and promote Federalism.

Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 12:29 PM

I think it’s also possible that the democrat party mingles anti-religion and racism and class struggle and a chicken-in-every-potism with it’s politics.

I don’t think that the Republican Party is guilty of using religion as a club. Some individuals are, true conservatives don’t. The ones that do are hauled up for example by the media as mainstream.

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 12:29 PM

I fully support Federalism. If California wants to ban guns and legalize abortion, let them! If Massachusetts wants to socialize their entire state, let them! If Utah wants to establish Mormonism as their state religion, let them! But let’s not have New York tell Arkansas they must legalize abortion. Let’s not have Georgia ban prostitution in Nevada. Let’s not have Vermont define marriage for Florida.

Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Had me right up until here. We can’t allow the Rights Guarenteed under the Federal Constitution to be overriden by the States. Otherwise the tyranny of the masses will override good sense eventualy, and Freedom will go away.

Kind of like in NY City today… I mean come on… regulating Trans Fat????

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 12:37 PM

I’m just stubborn, and have an unsupportably high opinion of my self.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 11:05 AM

And you have an understanding pillow…I hope more then that…

right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Tell you what, I’ll link to the google results when you type in “I believe God wants me to be president,” but first I really have to know if you have no idea who said it.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM

There are two statements, One about God, and the other about taking science out of school.
So let’s take them both…You have to give me an actual quote, not a third hand “report”, but an actual quote in context that “God told him”. I know the unsubstatiated rumors, but you pride yourself on FACTS.
So, the facts of the two quotes regarding God telling him, and not accepting science.
Please, have at it…I am still waiting…

right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Please, before you leave, tell us one example of a secular state that you would deem successful.
Show me how illogical this question is…you must have a dozen examples.

right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 9:59 AM

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so I stopped by this thread again.

The example of the successful, secular state I give you is: the United States of America.

Yes, I know, you think it’s a Christian state, not a secular one. To this I reply: the first amendment to our Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. A Christian state would look more like Massachusetts Bay Colony, where the free exercise of anything other than Puritanism is a capital offense.

My question to you: where in the Bible does it say that “all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?” Last I read the Bible, I caught something about the Israelites being God’s chosen people–so much for all Men created equal. Then there’s the bit about rendering unto Caesar–so much for Life and Liberty. If you were to read the first few books, you’d also find that death is prescribed as punishment for homosexuality, adultery, and idolatry–so much for the Pursuit of Happiness.

hicsuget on November 26, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Taking statements out of context, is what this boils down to. To win an argument, you have to remove the context. And what many of the unfaithful try to do, is take some snippet, out of context and apply it to a general belief.
That of course, is the only way they can win the argument. Is by distorting what they know is the truth, to fit their argument. Which is why I stated who said that in context. When you add the context, and that is what true history is, it is not the exact words, but the phrase, the thesis the words were written.
Remember, McCain once said “Hitler was a good example”…now do you think McCain thinks highly of Hitler?

right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 12:57 PM

hicsuget on November 26, 2008 at 12:48 PM

What did you do, go out and smoke a little crack?
The United States is a faithful nation, it was created by the faithful, so both the faithful and others could live without the threat of punishment…and that has lasted basically for these couple of hundred years.
I never stated, and you know exactly what I meant (don’t be coy), that a state that does not accept faith as it’s main building block is a failure.
Germany tried it, Russia, are they on your list.
There is no doubt, that the U.S. was built upon the faithful, and specifically Christians.
My question to you: where in the Bible does it say that “all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?”

My question to you: where in the Bible does it say that “all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?”

Try reading the new Testament…it will surprise you.
And I don’t think, you a non-believer, wants to get into a religious argument…you have already shown a very weak knowledge of the bible.
But I find it amusing that you equate adultery with the pursuit of happiness. That alone brings a chuckle to me, somehow it just fits my image of you.

right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 1:05 PM

right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 12:47 PM

I just posted the full quote, as told on national television by the man who heard him say it, using the exact words I originally posted. There’s no question about what he said, only how he meant it. Do you understand? Probably not.

I don’t know what your dribbling about when it comes to taking science out of school. I made a fairly obvious and specific reference to evolution. You know damn well that creationism is a cause celebre among conservatives – making appearances in: the presidential primary debates, the National Review Online and other mainstream conservative journals, a sympathetic review on this very site of Godwin’s Law: The Movie, the Texas Board of Education (currently), and pretty much anywhere there’s a Republican with an evangelical constituent. Gov. Palin couldn’t even bring herself to mutter the “e” word when asked to debunk the rumors she subscribes to the Flinstone’s theory of natural history – rumors that no one would have taken seriously if Republicans didn’t have such an abysmal track record of tolerating crackpot science to avoid offending fundamentalist Christians.

I can’t think of anyone whose opinion I could care less about than yours, so I won’t waste any more of either of our time. That’s all I have to say to you.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 1:13 PM

NeoConism, from a Democracy, has started TWO wars and is threatening at least THREE others…

But thats for another thread…. LOL…

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Inaccurate. One was accepting an (unfriendly) invitation to a war already in progress, while the other was finishing a war left half done by the “realists.” But, then, simple democracy is not sufficient: what has been promoted is rule-of-law governance restricted by individual rights and responsive to democratic considerations.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 1:19 PM

I think it’s also possible that the democrat party mingles anti-religion and racism and class struggle and a chicken-in-every-potism with it’s politics.

I don’t think that the Republican Party is guilty of using religion as a club. Some individuals are, true conservatives don’t. The ones that do are hauled up for example by the media as mainstream.

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 12:29 PM

By way of example, would you consider Ann Coulter a mainstream conservative? I think I can make a convincing argument that she is just based on the book sales of Godless: the Church of Liberalism.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 1:27 PM

RightOFLeft

Oh, goody. Another secular humanist troll. Does AP recruit you guys or are you the canadian sheetrock’s roommate?

SKYFOX on November 26, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Inaccurate. One was accepting an (unfriendly) invitation to a war already in progress, while the other was finishing a war left half done by the “realists.”

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Um, Osama Bin L was NOT part of the Afgan government… we invaded because they would not cough him up. We then overthrew the government and attempted to institute Democracy. Not saying we were wrong… but IF we did it to get Al Q, we have failed. The only losers so far was the old Afgan Government, and the Taliban who had supported Al Q.

Iraq was NOT a viable threat to the mainland US. Even if they GOT nukes, then the supposed threat was that they would give them to terrorists… we are now trying to impose Democracy there… it will be interesting to see if it lasts in a Moslem dominated society.

But IMO the whole Neo Con idea is silly, and against what History has taught us.

Democracys have started many wars throughout History.

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM

RightOFLeft

Oh, goody. Another secular humanist troll. Does AP recruit you guys or are you the canadian sheetrock’s roommate?

SKYFOX on November 26, 2008 at 1:33 PM

RightOFLeft has been around awhile.
Though I keep getting him visually confused with right2bright and right4life.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Will these people ever wake up and admit; on this last election we had a RINO as our canidate “not even close to being a true conservative” AND WE GOT OUR ASS KICKED!
If we would have listend to Rush and nominated a TRUE conservative we could have won!

time2taketheglovesoffGOP on November 26, 2008

No, we would have had our asses kicked by an even larger margin.

People need to get over the fact that its no longer 1980, and that exhuming Reagan is going to solve all our problems.

JFS61 on November 26, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, and so many others are a blessing in these troubled times.

Keemo on November 26, 2008 at 9:26 AM

IQ test time!Game show time! Which one of the names listed above does not fit in with the others?

MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Um, Osama Bin L was NOT part of the Afgan government… we invaded because they would not cough him up. We then overthrew the government and attempted to institute Democracy. Not saying we were wrong… but IF we did it to get Al Q, we have failed. The only losers so far was the old Afgan Government, and the Taliban who had supported Al Q.

Iraq was NOT a viable threat to the mainland US. Even if they GOT nukes, then the supposed threat was that they would give them to terrorists… we are now trying to impose Democracy there… it will be interesting to see if it lasts in a Moslem dominated society.

But IMO the whole Neo Con idea is silly, and against what History has taught us.

Democracys have started many wars throughout History.

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM

It doesn’t matter if OBL was officially part of the Taliban government. They supported his actions by not handing him over, thus committing an act of war. They were already at war with forces inside of Afghanistan, so doing this invited us into that war.
We were still at war with Iraq, just in a ceasefire that had been unenforced. It was a threat to our allies in the region, and nuclear weapons are always a threat to everyone.

It is not so much that Democracies don’t “start” wars (which is loaded in and of itself), but capitalist and law abiding democracies are significantly less likely to engage in conquest, revenge, and looting against other capitalist, law abiding democracies.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Will these people ever wake up and admit; on this last election we had a RINO as our canidate “not even close to being a true conservative” AND WE GOT OUR ASS KICKED!
If we would have listend to Rush and nominated a TRUE conservative we could have won!

time2taketheglovesoffGOP on November 26, 2008

No, we would have had our asses kicked by an even larger margin.

People need to get over the fact that its no longer 1980, and exhuming Reagan is going to solve all our problems.

JFS61 on November 26, 2008 at 1:46 PM

RightOFLeft has been around awhile.
Though I keep getting him visually confused with right2bright and right4life.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Which is ironic, in an Alanis Morissette kind of way. I don’t want right4life to get lumped in with my trollish ways, though. That’s a cool poster, imo.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 1:46 PM

United, we stand; divided, we fall…..

DL13 on November 26, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, and so many others are a blessing in these troubled times.

Keemo on November 26, 2008 at 9:26 AM

IQ test time!Game show time! Which one of the names listed above does not fit in with the others?

MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 1:44 PM

I plead insufficient knowledge, as I don’t listen to the radio, get cable or read Hewitt.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM

“That” referring to right4life (can’t remember his/her gender, not myself.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM

“That” referring to right4life (can’t remember his/her gender, not myself.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Remember, “he” is gender neutral.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 1:54 PM

No, we would have had our asses kicked by an even larger margin.

People need to get over the fact that its no longer 1980, and exhuming Reagan is going to solve all our problems.

JFS61 on November 26, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Not actually a testable hypothesis, but there is theory to support the conjecture that a more conservative candidate may have prevailed.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 1:56 PM

we are now trying to impose Democracy there… it will be interesting to see if it lasts in a Moslem dominated society.

Romeo13 on November 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Would an Iceberg last if towed to the equator?

MB4 on November 26, 2008 at 2:17 PM

I can’t think of anyone whose opinion I could care less about than yours, so I won’t waste any more of either of our time. That’s all I have to say to you.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 1:13 PM

But where is the other quote, you keep dodging that, the one regarding ignoring science.
Oh that’s right, you don’t have anything more to say, because it doesn’t exist…
You are good at dodging, but not so good on facts.
Once again I remind you…McCain said “Hitler was a good example”, by your thinking, McCain things Hitler was a good man…sheeesh, doesn’t comprehension mean anything to you? he who wants to win an argument.
Now, where is that person who quoted about science?…hmmmm?
(BTW, you do know that Palin’s father is a science teacher)

You know damn well that creationism is a cause celebre among conservatives

No I don’t know that, you said we ignore biologists.
This is what happens when you pin down a non-believer, he gets nervous and begins to quote things out of context, stretches the truth.
You consider a demand for you to back up your statements with specifics (and then find out the specifics are out of context), and they fall apart, as some unusual request.
All you had to do was originally show the quote (and I can see why you held onto it for several hours), and now show who made the other statements.
You said Palin, but she never made such a statement…never.

right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Remember, “he” is gender neutral.

Count to 10 on November 26, 2008 at 1:54 PM

I mangled that one pretty badly, for sure.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Rights are not granted by God, but rather by force of arms. God didn’t free America from the English Crown, men did. God didn’t free the slaves, soldiers did. God didn’t defeat the Nazi’s, or the Communists- patriots did.

Again, we differ in opinion. This really depends on your perspective. Every single example of defense of human rights that you described was religiously motivated in some way. Without the existence of a deity, it is extremely illogical for anyone to have love, care, or concern for any human being.

That in no way calls into question the existence or motives of God, only that men do evil upon one another and God judges. As mortals, we should allow God to enforce his laws and not delude ourselves into believing we can do it for him.

Wrong. There’s a very clear, concise line between be complacent and “acting above our pay grades”. Besides, many of God’s greatest works were performed through men. Take Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, even Jesus (Before the question even comes up, let me clarify that I consider Jesus to be both 100% human and 100% God).

Look at it this way, abortion and homosexuality are sins yes? And if a child is murdered by abortion, what happens? Does God damn the innocent to hell for the sins of another? You may believe that (that’s not an accusation), but I do not. If there is a God he must be omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient but above all he must be JUST. Where is the justice in damning a child that never even drew breath to eternal torture? Does it not make more rational sense that such a Deity would welcome the spirit of a murdered child into his realm? Therefore, if a child is murdered by abortion then the child goes to heaven, directly to heaven (do not pass go, do not collect $200). Only the murderers will be punished by God, and since he sees and knows all he is in a much better position to do so.

By this flawed logic, one could justify themselves in not participating in the prevention of a life-threatening crime against another. At this point, what would be the reason that we would need police, firefighters, or military? Even some atheists believe that we should preserve life in one way or the other.

Now how about Bob banging Billy? That’s a sin, yes? But who will be called to account for this sin? Will Bob and William get a free pass if they were imprisoned here in the mortal realm? If they are never caught on earth will they slip into heaven unnoticed?

Surely an intellectual such as yourself could find a less crass way to state your first sentence in that paragraph? I’m not against Bob and Billy doing whatever they want. That’s their choice. The problem is when they seek to FEDERALLY redefine the terms of a union that I, and many others like me consider to be sacred and proprietary.

I also have a problem with this because such redefinition would subject pastors and clergymen/clergywomen from my religion to defamation lawsuits and marriage licensing revocation if they refuse to perform a homosexual marriage as defined by their virtues and beliefs. And yes, it happens. This is government intervention and federal terrorism of the Christian religion at its worst, and wholly unconstitutional, as a restriction of the First Amendment.

So my conclusion is this:

Let God judge and punish those that break his divine laws and let men judge and punish those that break man’s laws.

And I do. But I’m going to defend my rights to religious freedom. If that offends you, you should probably find somewhere else to troll.

At last we have common ground!

I don’t support abortion. I don’t support gay marriage. And I can’t stand the idiots that get all bent out of shape when somebody says “Merry Christmas” in a public place.

I fully support Federalism. If California wants to ban guns and legalize abortion, let them! If Massachusetts wants to socialize their entire state, let them! If Utah wants to establish Mormonism as their state religion, let them! But let’s not have New York tell Arkansas they must legalize abortion. Let’s not have Georgia ban prostitution in Nevada. Let’s not have Vermont define marriage for Florida.

Did you think I suggested otherwise? I only have a problem with something when it’s decided at the federal level, but affects me at the local level.

Freedom is ensured by Federalism. Local control of spending and social issues is a winner because even people on the Left will be attracted to the idea. Once the social issues are brought back tot he states rather than hung up in the courts we’ll both have what we want.

But the path to that goal is not to stand here banging our collective heads against Roe vs. Wade. The winning strategy to achieve this is to pursue and promote Federalism.

Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Roe v. Wade is a prime example of anti-federalist, state’s right’s principals. Again, this is an action decided at the federal level, yet affects people locally. Can the great State of Kentucky place a Ban on Abortion?

No.

Why? Because Roe v. Wade dictated that abortion bans in most fashions violates constitutionally protected rights to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Aside from the fact that I believe abortion during any period starting at conception is murder, it enrages me as a man to know that my country doesn’t allow me to have my God-given rights as a parent in deciding the future of my child for the first 9 months of its existence.

leetpriest on November 26, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Upon my proofread, I caught a mistake. My second to last paragraph should read as:

Roe v. Wade is a prime example of anti-federalist, anti-state’s rights principals. Again, this is an action decided at the federal level, yet affects people locally. Can the great State of Kentucky place a Ban on Abortion?

leetpriest on November 26, 2008 at 4:09 PM

Funny- The more the GOP leans to the left, the more it loses.

gdonovan on November 26, 2008 at 4:23 PM

Very well then. Go ahead and do it your way. When you repeatedly fail to achieve your goals with democratic measures and are forced to pursue them with force of arms I will be proven right:

God will not have protected your ‘God-given’ rights, men bearing arms will have. And if you do put an end to the abhorrent practice of abortion it will not be because ‘God willed it’ but because you and your fellow parishioners murdered your opponents rather than defeated them in the voting booth.

And since my Federalist position is so much more offensive to you than our political adversaries, I’ll change my registration. You can have the party. Maybe if you merge the Republicans with the Constitutionalists you can get enough seats in the south to ensure no new conservative party can take hold, and in doing so ensure a Democrat majority for the next generation.

Browncoatone on November 26, 2008 at 8:08 PM

Very well then. Go ahead and do it your way. When you repeatedly fail to achieve your goals with democratic measures and are forced to pursue them with force of arms I will be proven right:

This is a terrible argument fallacy. You’re stating that because I refuse to sell my morals out like you have, and disown my God, I can’t win? That’s preposterous.

God will not have protected your ‘God-given’ rights, men bearing arms will have. And if you do put an end to the abhorrent practice of abortion it will not be because ‘God willed it’ but because you and your fellow parishioners murdered your opponents rather than defeated them in the voting booth.

Again, this depends on your point of view. I’m a Christian, you are not. You’re making an argument on the basis that we believe in the same theology, when in fact we do not. I’ve not once in my life ever murdered (war kills are not murder) a political opponent, or person with differing political or moral ideology, why would I start now? People can disagree without killing each other. People can also be fierce opponents of ideology without killing someone else. The actions are not synonymous.

And since my Federalist position is so much more offensive to you than our political adversaries, I’ll change my registration. You can have the party. Maybe if you merge the Republicans with the Constitutionalists you can get enough seats in the south to ensure no new conservative party can take hold, and in doing so ensure a Democrat majority for the next generation.

I never once stated that your federalist position was offensive. I said it was wrong. If you’d take the time to read, you’d understand that I was an advocate of state’s rights. If your state wants to allow open abortion, let it allow open abortion. If your state wants gay marriage, let it have gay marriage. If your state wants to tax residents into oblivion, let it tax residents into oblivion, I could care less. I’ll only make it a point to never visit your state. However, when the federal government unnecessarily stifles the rights of my state to run itself the way that the people of my state want it run, I have a problem with it.

If you want to blame me for the fact that the John McCain lost, by all means, blame me if it dries up your tears. But don’t ever tell me that I should be selling out like you, and voting for someone that has ideology more common with his opponent than he does me.

And if you want to whine a little more about how liberals run the country because “we didn’t reach across the isle more often” whine all you want. Telling members of your party to modify their thinking to compliment a world bent on moral descent is a proprietary to liberalism, not conservatism. You and your kind are cowards. At least liberals are running as liberals, you and your kind have poisoned the Republican party so that paleoconservatives are forced to choose between a full liberal, or half a liberal.

Leave the party if you want. Good riddance. Take McCain, Bernanke, Lindsey Graham, and all of the illegal aliens that supported them with you.

leetpriest on November 27, 2008 at 11:36 AM

The only rhetorical excesses I know about were reported by the media and probably taken out of context! See the vicious circle we get into here? That’s why I don’t believe most of what is reported until I have other sources to back it up. There is such a divergence of opinion here at HA and that is why I use this site!

Vince on November 26, 2008 at 11:54 AM

I think media bias is a legitimate issue. I try my best to be objective, and I think conservatives get a raw deal, there’s no question. –> But not everything the media reports is a conspiracy to destroy conservatism. Some of it, most of it even, is true. <– Sincere question – haven’t you ever thought that a Republican was trying a little too hard to establish his evangelical street cred?

Is it possible, in theory, for the Republican Party to mingle too much religion with its politics? If you answer yes, I don’t see how you can be upset with people like K. Parker (or even little old me) for raising the possibility that Republicans have gone too far.

RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Your error helpfully highlighted at no charge.

The media gets many things very wrong routinely. They are least to be trusted with criticisms of a) religion b) Republicans c) Republicans and religion d) military ANYTHING e) national security f) strong foreign policy g) the economy under a Republican president h) the economy under a Democratic president i) radicals j) communists

When the media claims that Republicans are too much in bed with the religious right, just remember how much outrage they have about Democrats openly campaigning for public office in black churches. The hypocrisy is thick enough to cut with a knife.

We need to be resisting the media’s attempts to tell us what to think, not rewarding them.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 27, 2008 at 12:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4