Quote of the day
posted at 10:35 pm on February 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
“Evangelicals never really did trust John McCain. They never really thought he was going to champion social issues. Speaking at the Log Cabin Republican Convention just confirms what many Evangelicals felt all along. Evangelicals were basically used by the Bush administration as a political voting block rather than any sort of instrument of change. They just wanted the votes. The cause was secondary. Same with McCain. With President Obama, while his views differ from conservative Evangelicals (which is a problem) he’s at least serious about having a faith based discussion.”
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: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
You talk trash like a basic training drop out that I once knew. Same MO.
CrusaderRabbit on February 18, 2009 at 1:40 AM
LOL! ok, you were being sarcastic on the Government Health Care. Sorry, Thank you for using humor now I don’t feel like such a fool.
sheebe on February 18, 2009 at 1:40 AM
they couldn’t comprise a majority the last two elections.
eh on February 18, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Did anyone outside of liberals and his immediate family trust McCain? He’d be just like Obama except for nuking Iran by now.
The Dean on February 18, 2009 at 1:41 AM
About fifteen years ago a friend had a litter of chocolate labs and one got parvo and one by one. The vet said back then, absolutely nothing they could do.
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 1:41 AM
I got bored. It was a boring topic, not worthy of my time to explain. Also, it was something where obviously he was willing to put more time into debating. I like to choose my battles wisely. I don’t generally march into battle unarmed or with no desire to battle.
thphilli on February 18, 2009 at 1:35 AM
Ah, so after defending yourself a few times you just got bored, decided to insult ‘her’ and then walked away with victory intact?
It looks more like you marched into battle, were soundly whipped, and decided to run for it.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 1:41 AM
Tough thread. Glad I missed it.
Francois on February 18, 2009 at 1:42 AM
Separation of Church and State. Period!
OldEnglish on February 18, 2009 at 1:42 AM
Nah hawk, he is just some MySpace, ADD, 20-something wannabe hipster, who types like he texts. I am sure you have seen all the mallrats doing it in between saying words such as “like” and “know what I am saying”.
ClassicCon on February 18, 2009 at 1:42 AM
He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good.
Tav on February 18, 2009 at 1:43 AM
I have a friend in the Netherlands. She says crime is bad. Real bad. We just don’t hear about it. She wants to move to the States.
sheebe on February 18, 2009 at 1:43 AM
@ TMK on February 18, 2009 at 1:38 AM
Where did you get your statistics?
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/nl-netherlands/cri-crime
thphilli on February 18, 2009 at 1:43 AM
“TMK on February 18, 2009 at 1:38 AM”
soooo, besides being a douche, he’s a liar too?
/who’d a thunk it?
Buckaroo on February 18, 2009 at 1:43 AM
I understand puppies are considered clinical “gulpers” They do not know how or when to stop. I’ve seen that big belly syndrome and I think they’re made that way.
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 1:44 AM
It is chilling.
Huckabee recently suggested something to the effect of changing the constitution so that is was more in line with God’s law. I don’t remember the exact wording, but I think it was pretty close to that. I kind of laughed it off, but after what happened in California, I’m not so sure he couldn’t pull it off.
The Discovery Institute was founded with the explicit religion of expanding the church’s government influence. After the setback at Dover, they’re stronger than ever and several states are on the brink of using science classes as a pulpit. To me, it’s a flagrant violation of the first amendment. To them, it’s step 1. The thin edge of the wedge, as they call it.
Obama is poised to accept the most egregious encroachments on the first amendment while simultaneously expanding the government that would enforce any future theocratic “achievements”.
80% of our country is Christian, but enough of them have respected our constitutional values that our freedom of religion is stronger now than it was 20 years ago (if not 10 years ago). I’m proud to share the country with people of so many different religious views; Christians no more or less than the rest. This despite the fact that the vast majority of them wouldn’t even consider voting for a non-Christian candidate, regardless of his/her virtues or competence, and that many of them call various non-Christians amoral or worse on a daily basis on this site.
Please understand, I’ll never accept any infringement on Christians’ (or anyone else’s) right to worship, but if I have to choose between a liberal socialist dystopia and a conservative theocratic dystopia, let’s just say I’ll be voting Democratic.
RightOFLeft on February 18, 2009 at 1:44 AM
@ Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 1:41 AM
More like I saw that the other side brought an army when I was only willing to bring a bicycle, and instead of attempting to battle I retreated.
thphilli on February 18, 2009 at 1:45 AM
they couldn’t comprise a majority the last two elections.
eh on February 18, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Regardless, 58 million people voted against Ogabe; I’m willing to bet they weren’t all aged, white townies.
Besides, without firing away about voter demographics for the next 500 posts, in a year that was supposed to be a DFL landslide, it was anything but, even for a smooth-talking con man who happened to be the right color.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 1:45 AM
Wait a minute. I thought you were about to eat lead.
Yeah, he does. It’s so adorable. Like a new puppy marking his territory.
baldilocks on February 18, 2009 at 1:45 AM
Texas Gal, I hope your dog doesn’t have Parvo. Will say a prayer for you and your dog. I love animals.
sheebe on February 18, 2009 at 1:46 AM
LOL.. Yeah, she was MY 1st dog away from my parents home and I realized just how much I didn’t really know that I thought I knew!
Texas Gal on February 18, 2009 at 1:48 AM
Knucklehead on February 18, 2009 at 1:38 AM
He’s (she’s?) right. Parvo is bad.
Ugly on February 18, 2009 at 1:48 AM
Your metaphor is also most lacking.
Tav on February 18, 2009 at 1:48 AM
Nothing says “classic HotAir” like a thread about teh gays!
SouthernGent on February 18, 2009 at 1:48 AM
You don’t know how close we Christians are to wrapping this whole thing up baby. We have the rest of the country right where they want us. Posed to make organized Christianity illegal.
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 1:48 AM
thphilli on February 18, 2009 at 1:45 AM
And in your battle rage you threw your bike at her and proclaimed yourself victor as you ran off the field.
It was a simple question she asked, all it took was a simple answer on your part.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 1:49 AM
Chicken!
Knucklehead on February 18, 2009 at 1:49 AM
It’s Ugly’s pup sheebe.. but it’s a long thread and we’ve been talking back and forth. And Ugly, don’t worry about parvo. I think if the vet was suspicious of that he would have had you go to the emergency clinic.
Texas Gal on February 18, 2009 at 1:49 AM
Remember when we were all so scare the evil Christian boogey men were going to institute school prayer?
I am so relieved with this new safe socialistic government.
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 1:51 AM
I think so too. This came on too suddenly. A parasite or something, most likely. Whatever the case, he needs a good looking over.
Ugly on February 18, 2009 at 1:52 AM
you’re right. it wasn’t a landslide.
eh on February 18, 2009 at 1:52 AM
You have one life, let it be gay
Shouldn’t one do as one’s told to?
No, let the moment enfold you
Grab up your one golden chance
Life is such romance
Give this world a sweeping glance
Let it set your soul a-dancing night and day
Vivez!
Live, here’s to life, let us be gay
Let go of each inhibition
No one need give you permission
What are you waiting for?
Vivez!
PercyB on February 18, 2009 at 1:54 AM
Are … bicycles … weapons … where you come from?
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 1:54 AM
I’ve seen parvo take a puppy down in a couple hours. If you’re dog is eating and drinking, I don’t you have anything to worry about.
I had a freak out with my dog who was eating the poisoned dog food from China a couple years ago. YIKES, scared me to death and cost me a fortune getting him tested.
Knucklehead on February 18, 2009 at 1:55 AM
BTW – be on the lookout for my video, singing Jack’s song :D
Coming to no theaters near you. Maybe youtube.
Ugly on February 18, 2009 at 1:55 AM
Ah well. He showed his hand early. I’m glad to have forced it.
baldilocks on February 18, 2009 at 1:55 AM
Now that’s funny right there. Anyone that thinks that has anything to do with global warming obviously never served in the military. Hawkdriver, you are a comic genius.
rmel80 on February 18, 2009 at 1:55 AM
I fret that so much is simply scrolled into oblivion. ;-)
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 1:57 AM
Sorry to hear that. Man… I couldn’t afford all that :/
The lady at the vet’s I talked to used to have two Golden Retrievers, now she has one. The other one cost her 5k in chemo. Died two months later.
Ugly on February 18, 2009 at 1:59 AM
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 1:54 AM
He should have substituted “tanks” for “army”, at least then there would have been an historical connection to qualify the metaphor; tenuous, but legitimate.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 1:59 AM
i just want to wrap up with this nonsense:
how is babby formed?
eh on February 18, 2009 at 1:59 AM
Ah well. He showed his hand early. I’m glad to have forced it.
baldilocks on February 18, 2009 at 1:55 AM
I have the feeling you’ll get another opportunity.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 2:01 AM
eh on February 18, 2009 at 1:59 AM
hahahahaha!!!
Ugly on February 18, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Knucklehead is my grandma!
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 2:01 AM
LOL.. good .. you’ll have to post us a link!
Texas Gal on February 18, 2009 at 2:06 AM
Thphilli,
I would have preferred arguing someone who could have at least made a valiant attempt to defend the notion that evangelicals who were allegedly against “two guys kissing” and against the murder of fetuses were somehow psychopaths. I could have even respected someone who was adult enough to admit that the foregoing was going overboard and that he/she didn’t really meant it.
What was pathetic was when you tried to pretend that you didn’t say what was plainly on the screen. Then the pathetic insult. Then the feigned boredom. “Oh I can’t be bothered! I must marshal my intellectual ammunition for higher battles!”
Thphilli. Be real, dude. You can’t dance in the big dance.
It’s okay, it takes practice. But the practice starts inside your own head. Here’s hoping for the beginning lesson.
baldilocks on February 18, 2009 at 2:08 AM
McCain has become irrelevant. Meanwhile, I don’t know if anyone has noticed the thousands of folks at Team Sarah who interact daily because of their shared admiration for a Vice-Presidential candidate who LOST the election. The Read My Lipstick network includes 115 ACTIVE blogs, the vast majority of which have posts that were published within the last 48 hours………and it’s been three months since the election was over. Many of them are men (some veterans in the mix, too). This sort of support for a VP candidate from a failed presidential election is UNPRECEDENTED in American history. McCain would love to have one-tenth the support Sarah Palin has. Several statistical models show he would have suffered a McGovern-like defeat if not for her.
gocatholic on February 18, 2009 at 2:28 AM
1) Who cares… Except this loon who’s flipping his wig about TEH GHEY as a sure-fire method of returning to power.
2) Are any Evangelicals really, honestly, surprised by Ms. McCain? Really? Was no one paying attention to all the “outing” the left was trying to do on McCain’s staff? By the end it looked like J-Mac’s campaign was like an episode of Project Runway. Nothing but smoking hot women and gay men as far as the eye could see.
Lehosh on February 18, 2009 at 5:49 AM
I’ll take being ignored by Republicans over being pooped on by Democrats any day. I don’t remember any dialogue though…
AbaddonsReign on February 18, 2009 at 6:39 AM
“I won”.
gridlock2 on February 18, 2009 at 6:48 AM
Obama isn’t serious about engaging with anyone who doesn’t share his agenda. People were shown this over and over. It is stupidity like this (not to mention self-sabotaging resentment for the only one who could have stopped it) that has brought the country what will be the worst presidency ever.
A faith based discussion? With Jeremiah Wrights prodigy?
Boxy_Brown on February 18, 2009 at 6:49 AM
Such angst! I can see the GOP winning big in 2010. Such unity must be rewarded with a return to power./
OldEnglish on February 18, 2009 at 6:50 AM
I always love this argument by those that have bought into this liberal mantra. Fact is, that isn’t in the constitution. This is, however.
And that’s in the First Amendment. While people must use “emanations of penumbras” to arrive at the “separation of church and state” idea (actually it was only mentioned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, and is no where near the constitution or even the Federals Papers, and was only first used in the 50′s by the SCOTUS to push a liberal agenda), it takes no such means to see that the second part is abused on a daily basis.
mwdiver on February 18, 2009 at 7:38 AM
With Giuliani we would have probably gotten Steve Forbes as Treasury Secretary. If you watch him on Forbes on Fox you will see what a huge mistake the GOP made by getting so hung up on the social issues. Forbes is one of the few people out there who has a handle on what is going on right now. Giuliani managed a city of eight million people (larger than most states including MASS), a city that was the center of the financial and banking world and understands all of it. It is a tragedy that we had a chance and threw it away and we will all pay for it now. But at least McCain was pro-life, right?
Ann NY on February 18, 2009 at 7:40 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the wording of the First Amendment, as posted by you, refers to Congress keeping its nose out of things that are none of its proper business. As to the Constitution, it had no place in there, either. Religion is a personal thing, not an issue to be either mandated or controlled by the State.
My post was a reference to those who would wish to subvert that.
OldEnglish on February 18, 2009 at 7:51 AM
And this Sarah Palin obsession is going to kill the GOPs chances in 2012 as well. She isn’t the worst candidate to come down the pike but she’s no Reagan and her grasp of economics is not at a level that is needed right now. I’m not sure she’s quite there on foreign policy either. Her instincts seem to be promising, but there’s not enough to get me excited AND if Mormonism was Rommney’s problem (which before the Prop 8 thing in CA I would have said it wasn’t that much of an issue), more people are wary of Pentecostals.
Ann NY on February 18, 2009 at 7:51 AM
This love affair with so called “Talking” and “discussion” is hilarious.
Forget the fact that The One supports baby killing and all that. at least he wants to “talk”.
LOL
Dritanian on February 18, 2009 at 7:58 AM
OMG LOL this is so stupid I don’t know where to start. She would be running for president and a position of leadership with specific economical goals, not economical leader in cheif. Few presidents understand economics to any professional degree. Thats why they hire people who do. The question is weither she has the philosophical background and grounded understanding to get the economy going. After the way she’s run her state, with a savings account and on a balance budget for every fiscal year she’s been there can U really say something so stupid as that she doesn’t understand ecnonomics?
With the bullshit that Obama is doing right now would U prefer him running your economical ship to Sarah?
Give me a break.
Dritanian on February 18, 2009 at 8:03 AM
If morals and values mean nothing, then we have no party. Conservatives do not accept openly gays in the military. We don’t want homosexuality taught to our childeren in public schools as an accepted lifestyle. Radical gays forcing States to adopt laws making homsexuals a “protected” class is a mockery of American values. If a “big tent” means abandoning principals and morals and ethics then count me out. We do not deserve to lead America if we can not claim and hold the ethical and moral high ground. Stand for family values. Stand for right against wrong. Stop believing in the “Greys” of nueace. Traditional marriage. I feel the continued lie about seperation of Church and State will never be resolved until the law is redefined, as intended by all our Founders writings, that the Federal Government shall not force a State Ordained Church (Church of Engalnd) upon it’s citizens. It has NOTHING to do with Government not being allowed to talk religion, act religious, worship and or comment of matters of faith, in both public areans and Government facilities. The idea that our Founders wanted to divest God from Politics is a falt out lie. Our money, our Constitution, Bill of Rights, all say the exact oposite. People who twist the law to divest ALL Government activities from the Church are wrong. The lie has been told and taught till it is believed, but history proves them wrong. Just once, read Jefferson, read the Constitution, the Preamble, other Founders writings… They just did not want a Government “RUN” / “CONTROLED” Church like they fled from in Europe and England. Once the Republican party embraces the fact that 70% of Americans claim to be Christian and verbalize the long time American view of values, morals, family, Country, God, faith and security it will again be the party of Reagan and win elections from radical Socialists. As long as the party turns towards radical gays, welfare, big spending, weak military, soft on crime ACLU types, and seperationists it will loose. Back to Reagan basics, as Rush says, will renew the party and the Country. Personal responsibilities…
Mark Garnett on February 18, 2009 at 8:06 AM
And where was CBN, Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schlafly and other evangelicals when Duncan Hunter (a true and devout Believer) was struggling so in the primaries? Crickets chirping. They had proclaimed him as unable to win. Said it couldn’t happen. Figured that “with God all things aren’t possible”. Even if Duncan had not won, had the above mentioned thrown their full weight (and $) behind this good man, it would have made a definite and unmistakable statement. You left him dangling in the wind. Now you want to whine. Mr. Brody will you have the courage to write an essay on this significant shortfall? DD
Darvin Dowdy on February 18, 2009 at 8:10 AM
I am evangelical and didn’t trust McCain but I did Palin. I will NEVER trust Obama. This man is not serious about Christianity he is not a Christian in fact he is anti-Christian.
No one sits in a racist church, believes God is black, doesn’t believe the Bible to be literally the word of God, doesn’t believe Jesus is the ONLY way to God, believes in abortion and that being gay is okay. That is an anti-Christian.
YEAH I SAID IT!
Mercy4Me on February 18, 2009 at 8:11 AM
And I don’t watch CBN, cause they are false prophets, and false teachers.
Mercy4Me on February 18, 2009 at 8:12 AM
How did such a stupid post get almost 500 hits?
Stalin’s half chimp-human hybrid warriors?
Mothers of the human-chimp hybrids revealed!
Will it blend?
Mr. Joe on February 18, 2009 at 8:12 AM
So Bush being the most pro-life President evah was some sort of ruse.
jgapinoy on February 18, 2009 at 8:15 AM
I was with you until the last sentence. Giuliani and Forbes would have been a very good combo because they have the desire and capabilities to make the economy better, allow our political system to work smoothly, and provide for our defense. But to what end, if not the protection of innocent life? Isn’t that our greatest purpose? Why else are we here?
JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 8:19 AM
At least Gov. Palin knows to tighten her belt during an economic crisis and not spend the country into deeper debt.
tnmama on February 18, 2009 at 8:22 AM
You know who else is serious about having a faith based discussion?
Ahmadinejad.
Disturb the Universe on February 18, 2009 at 8:28 AM
+100
I thought emotionalism over logic was the bastion of the nutty left but after reading some of the nonsense posted in the Bristol Palin thread yesterday I might have to agree with you.
muggedbyreality on February 18, 2009 at 8:41 AM
Delicious.
Now do you see how you have been manipulated?
If socon GOTV issues like abortion and SSM were resolved, the GOP leadership couldn’t whip you guys into a religious lather over them.
Who says conservos can’t learn?
strangelet on February 18, 2009 at 8:43 AM
It depends on when you think life begins. If you’re not religious, then life doesn’t begin at conception so you’re not going to think that abortion is murder.
Ann NY on February 18, 2009 at 8:44 AM
Your stance on religion and politics is like a woman saying that she is only a little bit pregnant. She either is, or is not. You cannot put a god into politics, yet claim any sort of separation between the two. That’s hypocritical.
OldEnglish on February 18, 2009 at 8:46 AM
You never post poorly. +10
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 8:47 AM
Scientists look to microscopic dark areas of contrast in meteors they believe from Mars and see life. How can we not look at biological material in the womb of a biological being and make the leap to, it’s life.
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 8:51 AM
It’s 6am so forgive me if this has been posted already but wasn’t it basically the evangelical backers of Huckabee who were responsible for us getting McCain instead of Romney in the first place? Once the economy tanked Romney would have had a much better chance at winning the election than John ‘The Economy Isn’t My Bag, Baby’ McCain. So, uh, good riddance…
oddjob1138 on February 18, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Merely pointing out that the “separation of church and state” is no where in the constitution. And to look at the actions of the Congress, SCOTUS, and others, to say that religious expression, i.e. “the free expression, thereof” is not being controlled by the state is ignorant, at best, and a down right denial, at worst. I am choosing to think the better of you.
mwdiver on February 18, 2009 at 8:56 AM
As I read these comments, I understand better why the GOP keeps on losing.
I respect the right of people to hold whatever religious views they wish. Yet, I high enough percentage of the American people now appreciate that being gay has nothing to do with the content of your character. Your sexual orientation is little different than your height or eye color; it is God given. Too many Americans have sons and daughters, co-workers and neighbors who happen to be gay – and they are fine people.
Thus, when the public perceives that the Republican Party condemns gay people and wishes to exclude them from civic life – the public will reject the party. And, instead of having small government, fiscal responsibility and free markets, we’ll get what we are getting now: government takeover, socialism and the destruction of freedom.
You choose.
pbundy on February 18, 2009 at 8:56 AM
If you want to protect life, go to Medical school, become a doctor, and work at the Free Clinic. The only purpose most people in this country care about is making sure they live in nice houses and providing for their families.
Speedwagon82 on February 18, 2009 at 8:57 AM
MadisonFauxConservative would tend to disagree… rofl!
Mark Garnett on February 18, 2009 at 8:57 AM
I’m SOOO looking forward to Huckabee kicking Obama’s ass on ALL of this.
marklmail on February 18, 2009 at 8:57 AM
/sarc
FIFY
muggedbyreality on February 18, 2009 at 9:00 AM
I’m not religious at all. But the degree to which abortion has become as commonplace as teeth brushing chills me to the bone. I don’t think someone has to be religious, or rely on religious determinations of when life begins, to know that abortion-on-demand is an abomination and affront to
Godhumanity.JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Let me see, ad hominem attacks and a false alternative argument, and you call me stupid (by the way the correct term is economic not economical)? When did I say Palin was less preferable than Obama? I didn’t even imply that she has less experienced than Obama AND if you actually read what I wrote I said her instincts were good, something you seemed to miss with your razor-sharp reading comprehension skills. Balancing a budget doesn’t necessarily mean she understands economics and would know the difference between Menger and Keynes. I want to know, before I go swooning over a candidate, that they know the difference and that they will hire people who know as well, lest we get another Paulson type appointee. I know Giuliani would refer to Forbes on matters of economics and I know Forbes is well versed in not only who the Austrians are, but which ones are good (Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, and Von Mises). Does Sarah Palin know this? Nothing I have read or seen indicates that she does and would probably refer to the same pool of idiots that helped get us into this mess to begin with, because there are plenty of economic ignoramuses on our side of the isle as well.
Bottom line, how is she supposed to judge who is a good economist and who is bad when she is hiring?
By the way, when calling someone stupid, you should spell YOU instead of using the high school level short cut U – just a helpful suggestion…
Ann NY on February 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM
If you want to continue the lie that is: Seperation of Church and State” then please go ahead. It’s not in our Constitution, so I do not recognize your statment as fact. It is the opposite actualy… Our Founders did not want the Government to DICTATE “what” church / religion we would adopt, but they expected and, in a few cases, required participation in “a” church or worship of God. But always with the idea that we had the freedoms to CHOOSE WHAT CHURCH, not be forced into the choice of the leaders… It is really so simple, Government SHOULD be religious in a Nation founded on religion, it SHOULD be involved in God’s laws and will… Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are “founded” after the models of the 10 Commandments.
Do you think that is just by accident? Come on….
Mark Garnett on February 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM
I agree with that, but don’t know if you’re saying it as a good thing or a bad thing.
JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Only within the state apparatus is there any control. No-one is denied freedom of expression outside of the govt machinery. If you wish to have it included within said apparatus, you are denying others their freedom of expression, which includes a denial of religion.
OldEnglish on February 18, 2009 at 9:06 AM
After reading this boondoggle of a thread, all I can say is this: Ugly, I hope your doggie is okay. I’d rather have a sick kid than a sick animal, because at least my kids can tell me what hurts.
Anna on February 18, 2009 at 9:07 AM
I’m not religious at all. But the degree to which abortion has become as commonplace as teeth brushing chills me to the bone. I don’t think someone has to be religious, or rely on religious determinations of when life begins, to know that abortion-on-demand is an abomination and affront to God humanity.
Ann NY on February 18, 2009 at 9:08 AM
+1
OldEnglish on February 18, 2009 at 9:09 AM
Mr. President is not open to a religious discussion. Otherwise, he would have honestly discussed going to Rev. Wright’s Church all those years and attending an Islamic School in Indonesia as a child.
kingsjester on February 18, 2009 at 9:10 AM
But not to vote in accordance with them?
Of course not.
You made this up.
Yes, some are fine people, some are swine, like the rest of us.
Perhaps so, but doesn’t mean the people are correctly reading the situation.
Apparently, it’s a two-way street. If you wish to promote equality between a homosexual and heterosexual life style, you may need to accept socialism, and the Obama’s of the world.
JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Or no,,,you choose. I feel the same way about Gay Republicans who will not relax their beliefs and are drawn to the liberal party. Our beliefs in of themselves can be polarizing. But I see very little condemnation from us. It’s exaggerated and over-reported.
But if Gay Republicans think progressives hold their freedom future, I hope you’re not partial to your first amendment rights. I hope you don’t own guns. I hope you’re not serious about religion. I hope you too are able to walk lock step in all the new giveaways with your hard earned money.
Bottom line is I’m sick and tired of folks on the other side of the aisle and people in my own party supposedly telling me I’m the problem when everyone is stubborn and what their beliefs realized out of their party. Conservatives have given much ground to make our tent big and open to everyone. But when you ask me to forget defending the unborn and such, I’m at the point where participation in the process is meaningless.
Pro-life is something in my heart and not just something I decided to feel. I would figure that Gay Americans would understand that better than most.
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Oh God no. I’ve given up trying to convince anyone of anything. I just state my positions.
I merely wanted to object to what I thought was your assertion that someone has to be religious to be pro-life. I certainly don’t wish to have an argument with you though.
JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 9:12 AM
Great, another grammar Nazi.
That’ll win you over on Hot Air.
(Actually Hawk the contraction for that will is….)
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Perhaps I should make myself clear. My original post meant to state that there should be a separation of the two, not that it may or may not be in the Constitution – either for, or against.
We will have to agree to disagree on this. You are clearly religious, whereas I am an atheist. I don’t think that the spiritual and temporal belong in the same room because the temporal affects us all, religion does not.
OldEnglish on February 18, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Point taken and respected. I understand why people get so passionate about the issue and I respect most peoples views on it as well, but I am very tired of discussing it too.
Ann NY on February 18, 2009 at 9:18 AM
WELL SAID !
+100
Mark Garnett on February 18, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Not a grammar nazi at all, just pointing out that if you’re going to call someone stupid, try to not sound stupid while doing so.
Ann NY on February 18, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Too many people want Conservatism to be an Elite watered-down version of Liberalism. They believe if they spend a little less of the people’s money, that makes them a Conservative. They believe that if the “tent” is expanded to include people who want big government and espouse non-traditional values, then more people will come to the tent and the GOP will win. Sorry. It does not work that way. If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. Beltway Elitists are blinded by their own arrogance if they think that the aforementioned plan will work. True Conservatism works. Liberalism always fails. They can’t even program a radio station.
kingsjester on February 18, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Very well said. I have no ill feelings, we did not resort to name calling… As you said we just disagree, gotta love America nd that freedom… At least for now…
Mark Garnett on February 18, 2009 at 9:21 AM
AMEN!
Mark Garnett on February 18, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »