Zo to RINOs: No, seriously, leave the party
posted at 2:27 pm on May 9, 2009 by Allahpundit
His second attempt this month to get social moderates to skedaddle, and a nice complement to Huck’s warning yesterday that a GOP without social cons would be as vital and viable as the Whigs. His riff on oil is irresistible, though. Oh, the dilemma of being a libertarian conservative and having to take sides between Zo and Meggie Mac…
Eh, it’s high time for a third party anyway. All we need is someone to lead it. Hmmm.
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 … 5 Next »
Whre can I get fitted for a Whig?
RobCon on May 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM
RINO!
Allahpundit on May 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM
There’s zero comparison between Zo and Megsy. Zo has earned his position hes in by being intelligent and funny. Megsy has earned her position by being born a mccain and vomiting all over the republican party in order to look cool to the likes of perez hilton.
thecollegepolitico on May 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Whatevs. I’m part of the Stormy Party now.
Allahpundit on May 9, 2009 at 2:35 PM
This is the same rationale the Left uses to justify listening to celebutards spouting lefty talking points.
Speedwagon82 on May 9, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Whatevs… possible party slogan?
thecollegepolitico on May 9, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Yeah you are. Last nights tweets were heavy man. Heeaavy.
She’s your flava of the month, huh?
Guardian on May 9, 2009 at 2:37 PM
From everything I’ve seen megsy is a celebutard. And how is Zo spouting talking points? His points on oil are wholly original as far as I can tell.
thecollegepolitico on May 9, 2009 at 2:39 PM
I am a libertarian Conservative, or if you want to call it, a South Park Republican, who enjoys things like Burning Man, and has more hippy/lefty friends than social-cons.
But she (Meghan) comes across as a clueless socialite trying to interject herself into politics. But its not so much about politics, as it is about her. Because we know many women on both sides of the aisle want one thing more than anything else, and that is attention.
I enjoy Zo, but I have no plans to go anywhere, other than volunteering with GOP to try and see it back to a small government direction.
firepilot on May 9, 2009 at 2:40 PM
I really get tired of people trying to excuse liberal positions by claiming libertarianism.
progressoverpeace on May 9, 2009 at 2:41 PM
I really get tired of people trying claim liberterian positions are liberal.
firepilot on May 9, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Why should we rid ourselves of social mods?
If they are fiscal cons, we need them.
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 2:43 PM
I see Allahpundit is once again on top of the situation. As long as Stormy has a platform you can really stand behind. I think Stormy may have the qualifications to get in front of populist rhetoric, and instead of whimpering and screaming about how bad she may or may not suck, we can all hope that she is able to stand erect for states rights, cut the pork and lick into shape all of those Toms, Dicks, and Harrys in Congress that she needs to to get the job done right.
canditaylor68 on May 9, 2009 at 2:43 PM
You won’t like her so much after she gives you a swirlie.
Blake on May 9, 2009 at 2:45 PM
I’d say that we should let anybody who wants to be a republican be a republican. Its the leadership that I worry about. Our leadership should be committed to conservative ideals. Let people who are socially moderate but fiscally conservative speak out of fiscal issues. Use that model, don’t abandon our core values and principles.
You know what I mean?
thecollegepolitico on May 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Me too, she’s got a lot of what it takes…
Zorro on May 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM
The GOP can’t lead with the abortion issue. That doesn’t mean that candidates have to adopt pro-choice positions or that the GOP has to drop it from the platform. It just means that it will alienate about as many voters as it attracts.
Zo gets to a point that the GOP can lead with and that is self-reliance. A party that clearly point out where Obama is taking both money and autonomy away from voters as he grows the role of the government can achieve a majority. The excesses and failures of government are already easy to point out and it is a certainty that the government will screw up more as it grows.
The social issues can play out on a regional basis but on a national level the party should lead with the elevation of the family and their ability to make more intelligent, less wasteful, less corrupt decisions than the government.
dedalus on May 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM
I do.
But I think to win nationally there are going to be some places we need moderates.
A strong conservative leadership could make them tow the line.
I also think I met you at the McDonalds near the OmniShoreham at CPAC. I could be wrong though.
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM
i meant social mods.
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 2:52 PM
You are confusing Republican with conservative. While social conservatives are a wing of a successful GOP party, they aren’t a viable national party on their own.
The whole RINO thing is an attempt by a wing of the party to assert that other parts of the party are inauthentic and might as well be Dems. To some extent that is happening and when the GOP consists of only social conservatives it is a party that runs at maybe 30% acceptance nationally.
dedalus on May 9, 2009 at 2:54 PM
As far as I am concerned, social issues are for the individual and the household. The more the government gets involved in sex and religion, the more it will SCREW it up, pun intended.
At some point in the last 10 years, the GOP went from being limited government philosophy, to trying to offer the same kinds of big government solutions, just done differently.
Both the lefties, and social conservatives want the government involves in personal issues. I would rather just live my life as I see fit, not how some politican, preacher or lefty Che-loving Bay Area marxist sees fit.
firepilot on May 9, 2009 at 2:54 PM
There are social conservatives that run for the democratic party. I don’t hear them saying the democratic party needs to be more conservative. I think if you are a social moderate, run; but you don’t have to go out there and say that the party has to become more liberal. That is just my opinion, however.
deidre on May 9, 2009 at 2:55 PM
While I don’t agree with everything Zo says – I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with him in a foxhole anyday over a wishy-washy liberal.
And comparing him to Megan is an insult. Zo has A LOT of life experience. He knows what it’s like to have to EARN a paycheck. He’s had to provide for a family. He also has a unique perspective of being raised in a liberal African American family – and, in spite of that – thinking in an independent manner to evolve his views to the point they are today.
Absolutely no comparing a principled guy like Zo to Ms. Trust Fund Disco Diva Megan McCain – who’s about as shallow as a petrie dish.
HondaV65 on May 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Help us out here.
baldilocks on May 9, 2009 at 2:57 PM
SECOND LOOK AT HUCKABEE!
Allahpundit on May 9, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Third party stuff? OK, I get the direction of Hot Air.
I think you’re way off the map, personally.
I don’t the GOP is remotely dead.
Here is why I think this.
The issues that underly a conflict are the real substance of the debate.
For example, the Whigs were hugely anti-slavery. The Civil War happened. A lot of voters thought that issue was dead.
Looking back, of course, it turns out that issue was just the beginning.
So what is the issue that the current GOP supports that truly is that big of a NO from voters.
The war in Iraq? Nope.
Gitmo? Nope
Women’s rights? Nope.
So what?
AnninCA on May 9, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Detail a “libertarian” position of yours, that is not accepted by the conservatives, and I’ll show you how it’s a liberal position.
The real problem is that, because the left wants a Super-State, instead of a Union of States, they don’t have any distinctions between their state views and their federal views (as the fed is the only real government to lefties). Conservatives believe in a Union of States (as is the whole point of the Constitution) and thus, we have very different state views than federal views. Many “libertarians” have left-leaning state views that they take to the federal level.
So, in the example of marijuana, say, the conservative view should be that the federal government has no business making any laws about it, with the possible exception of interstate transfer/sale. I happen to be pro-legalization, but that is not a view fit for the discussion of federal governance. That should be only a state view – and at the state level it is a socially liberal view. But, if I voice this as a federal view, then that is purely liberal, in that it is in advance of the Super-State concept.
That’s how I see a lot of this, anyway.
progressoverpeace on May 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM
No, Allapundit. Huckabee is a terrific radio voice. He’s found his niche.
But he’s always going to be a terrific voice for the minority.
Nothing more.
AnninCA on May 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Just say NO!
Knucklehead on May 9, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Pray tell, how is getting the GOP back to its traditional role of limited government and not telling people how to live their lives, something that is “more liberal”.
Its the liberals who have had a thing for telling people how to live, they have for decades. Getting the government out of peoples personal lives is less like liberals, not more.
firepilot on May 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM
If the libtards are all for us dumping the so-cons then its probably a good idea to keep ‘em around.
Iblis on May 9, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Social conservatives will always be a majority of the Republican Party. At the moment, it doesn’t look like social conservatives can win a majority of the Senate, let alone a minority that can sustain a filibuster. So, it would seem that in order to maintain conservatism on fiscal and defense matters, we need to include social moderates and libertarians.
However, tolerance between the various factions of the Party, does not seem a high enough priority at the moment to result in Party unity.
Other than that, I hope you are having a good day.
Loxodonta on May 9, 2009 at 3:06 PM
To Purge,or not to Purge!!
It is inexplicable perplexing me thinks,
Rino’s,moderates,fence sitters oh my!
canopfor on May 9, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Let the Liberal Party belong to the Pelosi Snakes,
the Lizard people,as well as the Democrat shape-
Shifters!(Sarc).
canopfor on May 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Just relaxative.
Loxodonta on May 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM
It’s a good analysis.
I like to dig on “moderate” Republicans by telling them they are borrowing Obama’s “spendulous” theory and using it to revive our party.
You’ll recall – that Obama’s “spenduluos theory” relies on going into EVER DEEPER debt in order to revive the economy. It’s suicide.
Moderate Republicans will tell you that we’re in trouble because we’re hemorrhaging voters and the only way to recover is to completely jettison the right wing of the party – which is where the strongest support is. Again – that’s suicide.
The reason the Republican Party is so solid in the South – still (and will get even stronger here) … is because it’s CONSERVATIVE. Hell – Republicans down here RUN AGAINST Obama without fear. Last election, they repeatedly chanted the mantra that “My Democratic Opponent has endorsed Barack Obama for President” … that was all it took to kill those Dems. People don’t much like Obama down here – with the exception of the African American communities where they seem to like him a bit.
There is mostly open anger for Obama down here – that he’s already killed the country. Secession talk is not unusual – I’ve never seen it this bad before actually. In the past “secession talk” was just a fun pastime – now it’s taking on the air of “survival”.
A friend of mine told me the other day we could secede from the union – drill for all the oil in the Gulf we wanted to – get all the revenues – and bag the yankees with the Obama debt. People are getting nervous – they want to get the hell away from this crushing debt that we are already slaves to.
.45 ACP ammo is sold out at WalMart – and also at most gun stores. People are buying up ammo like there is no tomorrow. Something is brewing.
Try to moderate the Republican party down here and the Republicans here will walk. Makes no sense to take your strongest area of support and turn it against you. Moderates just don’t get it.
HondaV65 on May 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Just relexative.
Loxodonta on May 9,2009 at 3:13PM.
Loxodonta:I’m working on it,good lord,every person under
the sun,wants to chime in on,the direction of
the Republican Party!
I do agree with Zo,tho!!:)
canopfor on May 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM
ZO FOR PRESIDENT!!!
at this point it doesn’t matter who is in power…the USA is going DOWN…before we (ever) get up…
right4life on May 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Sure, Limited Government
That USED to be a central part of the GOP platform, along with national defence. The Lefties have always wanted more government in our lives, and instead of the GOP opposing it, they have either offered up something slightly less intrusive, or just another big government program with a different philosophy.
Both the Democrats and the GOP have moved more left compared to 20 years ago, in embracing government solutions to everything.
Lately it seems a growing number of Republicans would be fine with a social nanny state telling us how to live, as long as it was about social conservative values.
I do not want to tell anyone to leave the party, I want it to be a big tent. But the GOP cant be about both a return to limited government, AND social conservatism in government too.
And its still rather irksome and inaccurate how Social Conservatives label people who do not want the government telling people how to live, as being like Democrats. As far as I am concerned, telling people how to live, is like Democrats.
firepilot on May 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM
The more the media, celebrities, and Democrats (birm) tell me the Republican Party is falling apart, the happier I am, because they are what I like to call “contrary indicators”.
That means about half of what they say is simply wishful thinking… and the rest is an outright lie.
drunyan8315 on May 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM
the GOP is a moderately progressive party, unlike the democrats a rabidly progrssive party…do ya wanna die slow or fast??
might as well go for the gusto!!!
anybody REALLY think the GOP will roll back government???
if ya do, I have this bridge for sale…cheap!!
right4life on May 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM
A social conservative is more likely to stick up for fiscal Zo is just responding to all the attacks morons like Frum and Meg McCain have been tossing at social conservatives. Usually, when it comes down to it, a social conservative is much more likely to be or make deals with a fiscal conservative than a social liberal.
Daemonocracy on May 9, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Very well said, and you are exactly right.
I own me, not the government.
-Dave
Dave R. on May 9, 2009 at 3:30 PM
think again…this is 2009 you know? get with the times..
right4life on May 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Zo is right as usual! Let the RINO’s walk across the aisle. They are already ruining the party anyway. We will be better off standing on the Republican platform than falling headlong off it to pander to the left. Man, why don’t we learn from the last two elections? Moving the party left doesn’t win elections, it only causes more favorable MSM coverage until we go head to head with REAL leftists.
Christian Conservative on May 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Whatevs. I’m part of the Stormy Party now.
Allahpundit on May 9, 2009 at 2:35 PM
With your conservative creds you should ask her out,i’m sure Stormy would find the opportunity irresistable.
heshtesh on May 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM
I assume that you mean limited federal government (and then you mean limited state government for those powers the states have). But, limited federal government is not really a “libertarian” position – though many liberatarians may adopt it. It’s a conservative position; one of just following the Constitution. The ideology of libertarianism applies more to how governments interact directly with the populace (which is not really what the federal government was set up for to start with), which is almost exclusively a state issue. Right? Am I missing something?
I understand that you don’t like super-state RINOs. Neither do conservatives, of any stripe.
progressoverpeace on May 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Whatevah
Ugly on May 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Arnold Schwarzenegger was a “social mod”, and a “fiscal” conservative. Somehow he ended up being liberal on both fronts. Seems to be a trap built in to people with a lack of solid core values.
Show me a “social liberal” and I’ll show you a liberal.
Squiggy on May 9, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Well, good luck winning national elections with social conservatives.
T’ain’t happenin’
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Although I do remember a certain someone who was able to succeed with a broad range of people and their ideals.
Started with an R.
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Look, I’m sure you and I agree on many issues. But I would just remind you the context of Allah’s appeal to libertarianism:
Having put Junior McCain in there is the type of “libertarianism” I was addressing. I doubt you would term any of Mega-Mac’s positions as driven by libertarianism, hence my original comment.
progressoverpeace on May 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM
and im a social con by the way.
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM
HAHA… forced volunteerism! This guy is brilliant!
AbaddonsReign on May 9, 2009 at 3:52 PM
/applauds
What I find interesting is that Social Cons, especialy those of the religous right, equate Libertarian with Liberal or Moderate…
I don’t want ANYONE telling me how to live my life… I’m for freedom of choice, and conscience…
Now, I am Pro Life, because they are taking choice and freedom away from a PERSON (the fetus).
I’m pro gun so we can defend ourselves.
Marriage? should be between you, your Honor, and God… not between you and the State.
IMO the next power block in this country will be Fiscal Conservative and Social Lib/Federalist… as this gives the most Freedom to the most people…
I’ve got 18 year old twins… and talking to them, and their friends, there is a HUGE amount of interest in that type of a Party… ie… change… but change BACK to what the Founders intended…
Question will be will the GOP go that way? or will it go the way of the Whigs?
Romeo13 on May 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM
I’ll be standing right behind her (literally)! Doh!
TheBigOldDog on May 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Allah, at least you can’t get SWINE flu from rubbing on Zo………
HornetSting on May 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM
It is bizarre to pretend the McCain bimbo is representative of anything but her immature narcisstic self.
Blake on May 9, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Problem is in Labels… we have to talk in labels even though they are all really sliding scales…
IE… Conservative… is that a Fiscal Con? a Social Con? or must you be both… and to what extent on a sliding scale?
Its like asking “do you believe in Democracy?” Just about everyone in the US will say Yes… and yet a pure Democracy would be the tyrany of the masses…. its a sliding scale…
Problem is that there is no definition of the scale itself.
Pure Libertarianism would be as much a problem as pure Democracy…
Oh, and by the way, the Constitution, as written, is about as Libertarian as you can get and still have an effective Government… which is why so many of us support it.
Romeo13 on May 9, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Weld was a successful fiscally conservative governor in MA.
dedalus on May 9, 2009 at 4:04 PM
The problem with these folks calling themselves Republican (Specter, Schwarzenegger, the senators from Maine, Meghan McCain etc.) isn’t that they are social liberals.
Their problem is that they are social and fiscal liberals . If you’re going to call yourself a Republican and you’re not a social conservative, you should at least be a fiscal conservative. With the exception of MegMcC, their actions in office demonstrate clearly which side of the aisle they support.
MegMcC has no record, as an “author” or otherwise, to support or refute her fisc-con creds. However, until I hear some specific fisc-con views from her, I will not believe she is one.
Oh, and I’m not giving GWB a pass on this, either. He signed the first steaming pile of crap in this giant bailout fiasco, TARP. No true fisc-con would have done that.
vermillionsky on May 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM
but what did he do? is the culture changed at all? no…did the government in MA get any smaller? not that you would notice..
the republicans are all for growing government, conservatism has failed as a political ideology.
we need someone like WILBERFORCE to change not only the laws, but the culture…
right4life on May 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Hahaha.
I liked the riff on Ahnold the best- have him get out and push!!!!
ladyingray on May 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Fickle.
ladyingray on May 9, 2009 at 4:10 PM
But the Republican Party is much more receptive to big Federal Government solutions to everything, than they used to be. It used to not be that way, Republicans wanted the government to just stick to the basics and hand the rest off to the states.
I am sure I could quote directly from Barry Goldwater “Conscience of a Conservative” and social conservatives would tell me I am a RINO and being like a Democrat.
But to me, so many Social Conservatives want the government to be involves in things it has no business being in. Like those who want the government teaching their values and for religion having a more promininent place in school and government.
But then, what will those same people say when someone who has opposite values or a different religion gets into office and does the same thing. Kinda hard to put that Genie back in the bottle then.
A lot of social conservatives seem to be more and more for a federal nanny state, as long the right kind of ideas are in that nanny state.
As for me, I do not want any kind of federal nanny state. Sure, its easy for a lot of people to be okay with giving the federal government more power as long as they shared similar values. But thats just not something you can roll back as soon as someone you disagree with gets elected, and then gets the chance push their values.
Sex and Religion are about as personal as it gets. The government is good as screwing things up, I certainly dont want the feds involved in those two issues.
firepilot on May 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM
poor arnold
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM
I think most of the people who want the “social mods” to leave don’t see them as moderate at all – they see them as social liberals.
Frankly, there is too much labeling.
ladyingray on May 9, 2009 at 4:13 PM
I agree. too many people going:
LIBERAL!!!
when someone isn’t in line with them 100 percent.
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 4:14 PM
The party belongs as much to the libertarians as it does to the social cons. How dare he tell me to leave.
My primary issue is containing and someday defeating socialism. Everything else is secondary to that goal.
I’m not explicitly against many of this social ideas so long as he doesn’t force them on anyone, but I understand that his support is contingent on my tacit support for his programs.
So fine. I’m willing to compromise with him on that. But if he’s not willing to ally with people like me to get what he wants then he’s screwed. He can’t carry the day with nothing but the bible thumpers. There aren’t enough of them and frankly they’re so predictable that they’re easy to defeat unless they come in great numbers.
The only reason the reps have given as much ground to these people is that we needed the votes. And now they’re demanding 100 percent control over the party? Hell no. It’s a coalition which means no one faction runs the whole party. Stop it.
If it becomes a situation where one of us has to get thrown under the bus I’ll try to make that not be me. You can’t blame us for that… it’s simple survival. There’s no reason to throw either of us under the bus though.
Don’t be stupid.
Karmashock on May 9, 2009 at 4:15 PM
until and unless you change the culture of this country, we’re going to be stuck with a nanny-state. people want the government to take care of them, and they’re happy with the social security and medicare.
I’m afraid our government is going to have to collapse to have a change of culture large enough to have the type of government that our founders had…
and given the signs of the times…it ain’t gonna happen..sorry.
right4life on May 9, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Well said. This is pretty much how I feel about the role of government and my dissatisfaction with both political parties.
vermillionsky on May 9, 2009 at 4:16 PM
and us ‘bible thumpers’ are sick of the arrogant libertarians, and we won’t support you. you want the republicans?? fine, you can have em.
see how far you get without us.
right4life on May 9, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Yes. I was being unnecessarily argumentative, earlier, and I had forgotten the original motivation for my post (BabyMac).
progressoverpeace on May 9, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Some liberal and libertarian positions overlap. Like slaughtering the unborn by the millions.
Darth Executor on May 9, 2009 at 4:19 PM
R – O – N … A – L – D
Find out what it means to me.
R – E – A … G – A – N
The sort of man we need again.
Sock it to me. Sock it to me. Sock it to me. Sock it to me.
Another Reagan.
Sock it to me. Sock it to me. Sock it to me. Sock it to me.
Another Reagan.
Loxodonta on May 9, 2009 at 4:19 PM
It’s true.
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 4:21 PM
No it doesn’t. Most social cons are fiscal cons. Most libertarians aren’t social cons (if they were, they wouldn’t be libertarians). You’re a minority and thus not entitled to the party as much as the majority. If purging baby killers from the party bothers you, go join stormfront and the rest of the conspiracy theorists and white supremacists in the libertarian party and leave us alone.
Darth Executor on May 9, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Yer showin’ your age…
ladyingray on May 9, 2009 at 4:22 PM
How to?
Loxodonta on May 9, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Huh? I’m confuzzled
Only as old as you let yourself feel
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Yep. I’m a social con, but I believe rather than get all torked up over social issues and have them affect my vote, I am better served to get torked up over judiciary appointments.
That is the most important thing and will affect all social issues.
ladyingray on May 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Indiana Jones said it’s not the years, its the mileage.
ladyingray on May 9, 2009 at 4:25 PM
I am definitely not a liberal, far from it. There is not any position I have in common with the left. Just because a lot of my views do not coincide with social/religious conservatives though, does not make me a liberal.
Its like the argument on Evolution the other day here, where a some of Christian Conservatives want their particular views on biblical creation represented in Biology and classes. But then if you do that, you open up to every other religion getting their theology in the science classroom. You cant open up the door just for your religion and then close it right back again. Biblical creation can be taught in Church and the home, you do not need the government to do it for you.
Maybe I can find a better example. A lot of evangelicals want more values taught in school, especially represented by the Bible and would be fine with a Biblical class in public school.
But then what if you get the government into that business, and then some Bay Area flaming Lefty was elected, who then wanted to mandate tolerate and acceptance classes, and would use books like “Heather has Two Mommies” in school.
Social Conservatives would have heartburn and second thoughts then about letting the government teach values in that case.
Those things are best left for the home, family and church. Your church can do a better job with social values than any government program and politician can.
firepilot on May 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Whats interesting is that there are a vast number of people out there who think much the same… and yet have no place in the current power structure, because they are anti governmental power.
Problem is, that there is no current organization that has that mind set… which is why last poll saw a full 39% of the people self designate as Indpendent, and that percentage is growing.
Serious question for Social Cons out there… if there was a Party that followed the origional Constitution, but was NOT for Social Issues at a FEDERAL Level (ie get gov out of marriage, make abortion a STATE issue, no hate crime laws as they are not equal protection under the law)…. Could you support it?
Romeo13 on May 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM
And they say the libertarians are full of hate…
The Dean on May 9, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Never. I am ageless.
Loxodonta on May 9, 2009 at 4:28 PM
I’ve found too many “older” people today let themselves get “old.”
I worked at a physical therapy place for a while (was a patient for about 3 -4 years), and I saw all these old people who weren’t even that old, but they did no physical activity, so they were all tight, and were sore and could barely move around easily.
This one woman had a stroke, and had been in a chair for a while. Could barely get around with a walker. Then after 3 weeks of going in for stretching, she started to walk on her own. It’s amazing.
They stop being active, that makes them feel old physically, then they feel old mentally, and its some downward spiral
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM
How to get one, got any ideas?
Personally, I’d prefer lots of them.
Loxodonta on May 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM
What do you mean? sorry im kind of slow today
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM
No yard sales for you!
RINO!
Loxodonta on May 9, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Untrue.
A lot of Libertarians I know are pro life… but because you are taking the Freedom, choice, and life, away from a person (the fetus).
Which is one way you win that arguement… not by making it a religious thing…
Romeo13 on May 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM
He nails it.
Socialist elites lie shamelessly to their zombie followers.
Limited government and free enterprise allow for individuals to be lazy of their own volition. Life, though, will most likely kick their ass
Socialist leaders appeal to the idle in the beginning. Once the system is in place, though, there choice to be lazy comes off the table. Government will kick their ass, because the entire regime is dependent upon forced volunteerism.
There is a reason that places like Cuba boast of full “employment”.
Saltysam on May 9, 2009 at 4:36 PM
You’ll have to wait for her book, soon to be released after it’s ghost written. Yes, the chubby one got a book deal based on the fact she is McCain’s daughter, bashes conservatives, and Laura Ingraham called her ass fat. Isn’t this a great country? :)
Blake on May 9, 2009 at 4:36 PM
racist
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 4:37 PM
It’s OK. There’s nothing wrong with being a slow learner.
I M 1 2
So, I’ll spell it it for you:
R – O – N … A – L – D
Find out what it means to me.
R – E – A … G – A – N
The sort of man we need again.
How do we get more of such RINO’s. Got any ideas?
Loxodonta on May 9, 2009 at 4:38 PM
oooohhhhhh
hm
good question
maybe if we mix, sugar, spice, and everything nice in a pot and stir it quickly
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 4:40 PM
You’re happy. Admit it.
Loxodonta on May 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I’m a miserable old bastard, thank you very much!
blatantblue on May 9, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Exactly. I believe the Republican party is failing because it was supposed to be that party, the party of limited federal government power and strict interpretation of the constitution, and it has failed. Instead, its leadership is just as ethically corrupt (leading to increased government spending) and just as self-preservationist (leading to an expanded role of government) as the Democratic party.
vermillionsky on May 9, 2009 at 4:43 PM
So it’s come to Zo being mentioned in the same sentence as Meggie, ahem, Meghan McCain?
Please tell me you don’t actually think the two are remotely comparable.
Hawkins1701 on May 9, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 5 Next »