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.


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 3 4 5

threats?? from the person who said he would ‘destroy me’??
I said no such thing. I said if you come after my rights I will destroy you.

Why do you have this perverse need to misquote people?

lets see you claim you said no such thing…and then you admit you did…you are good for one thing…laughs…

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM

in other words you don’t know…you take it on FAITH!!!

Uh, no. In other words, it’s possible to have sufficen knowledge withot having perfect knowledge. If I see a car driving, I know it exists even if I don’t know what speed it is traveling at.

as far as the fish..

Oh, “Just a fish,” huh? How about you show me another fish that has a MOBILE NECK. And considering that neither you nor Luskin even attempted to address the fact that Shbin was able predict EXACTLY WHERE they could find a Tiktaalik like creature, I’ll assume it’s because you there is just no reponse to that fact.

You lose.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM

this is just such a laughable lie.

you’re going to have to justify yourself someday..good luck with that.

You just dodged the question.

You are trying to take my rights in the same way as the islamists. Thus I am treating you the same way.

Justify yourself… Why are you different?

Answer or concede.

so disagreeing with the gay agenda makes me a bigot.

Not at all. But your little conspiracy theories about the looming homosexual threat sound pretty paranoid.

Lets exchange that with something else. Who else randomly brings up a group of people in their conspiracy theories? Oh, that’s right the islamists and Nazis do it… though they mostly pick on Jews for some reason.

Anyway, here you are raving about some secret homosexual cabal that I’m apparently a member of (without my knowledge apparently, but it’s nice to belong to something) while at the same time complaining about a statement you think was racist (it wasn’t racist).

How am I supposed to take that? If I were gay I’d be offended by your statements. They have every bit as much right to happiness as the rest of us.

Are you against gay people having civil unions? I can understand your problem with the term “marriage” so I’m trying to find some middle ground where everyone gets what they need. But you’re obstinate and hostile refusal to engage renders the process futile. Which just means we have to start killing each other until someone comes out on top and imposes his will on everyone.

I suppose you think you’d be that party. But even if you were, you’d just create Afghanistan in America. It would come to nothing and you’d damn your children to poverty, malnutrition, and ignorance.

Not really fair for them.

.but spreading lies and hate about christians doesn’t make you a bigot…right.

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM

I’ve spread no lies about Christians.

Your hostility and lack of inner peace is unbecoming of a follower of Christ. You’re just a raging zealot. You are a disgrace even to your own religion.

Karmashock on May 10, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Uh, no. In other words, it’s possible to have sufficen knowledge withot having perfect knowledge. If I see a car driving, I know it exists even if I don’t know what speed it is traveling at.

but you have no knowledge…can you even tell me one?

predict EXACTLY WHERE they could find a Tiktaalik like creature, I’ll assume it’s because you there is just no reponse to that fact.

You lose.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM

did you even bother to read where EVOLUTIONISTS say the fish was a ‘poor example’?????

you lose.

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:03 PM

You are trying to take my rights in the same way as the islamists. Thus I am treating you the same way.

Justify yourself… Why are you different?

this is so blatantly and obviously studpid there is no reason to even debate it. its a lie…like everything else you post.

Not at all. But your little conspiracy theories about the looming homosexual threat sound pretty paranoid.

OOOOH PARANOID!! wow cool man!! here’s an article from that PARANOID HERITAGE FOUNDATION!!!!

Same-Sex Marriage and the Threat to Religious Liberty
by Thomas M. Messner
Backgrounder #2201

Redefining marriage to include same-sex unions poses significant threats to the religious liberties of people who continue to believe that marriage is a rela­tionship between a man and a woman. These threats have loomed large for several years, but recent devel­opments, including the recent Connecticut and California judicial decisions redefining marriage to include same-sex unions, have refocused attention on the issue in a new, particularly urgent way.

link

again, I’m amazed at your stupidity.

I’ve spread no lies about Christians.

obviously you have…but its your nature…like ‘father’ like son…(and no you won’t get the reference)

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:07 PM

did you even bother to read where EVOLUTIONISTS say the fish was a ‘poor example’?????

you lose.

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:03 PM

I saw where the the evolutionsits said that the quality of the “distal radials” wer poor, not the entire specimen.

I’m still waiting for you give me an example of a modern fish that has a mobile neck. Here’s Shubin’s Nautre article on the Tiktaalik if you want to take a look.

Keep calling it a fish if it helps you feel better.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM

Keep calling it a fish if it helps you feel better.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM

ever hear of a mudskipper? they go on land too…so?

what does this ‘mobile neck’ prove?

and how do you know it won’t be declare as poor as the wrist??

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:16 PM

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM

and you don’t even have ONE mutation for the eye???

let me guess…you’ll tell me a story about how ‘light sensitive’ cells *magically* became an eye…

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:17 PM

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM

and don’t forget to explain to me how a computer program of any sort can prove or disprove evolution…

and take your best shot at the tuatara…explain why it has the fastest rate of molecular (DNA) evolution…and yet is a living dinosaur…this should be good….

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:20 PM

I’m combining a lot of your different posts so they’re easier for me to keep track of. Do me the small courtesy of not exploding one post into fifteen. It’s obnoxious.

oh yeah cutting a hole in the back of babie’s head and sucking out the brains, is REAL compassionate there jethro!! sure

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM

I have cut no holes in the heads of any baby sir. While you have personally acted disgracefully.

And again, because I know you’ll try to bring up my conduct as justification (falsely), you can’t do even that by the tenets of your religion. You are judged before GOD not in comparison to me.

You have a religious obligation to act with more civility. Jesus would not rage at me and I would listen to Jesus.

My mind is not closed but it is the consequence of my environment. I am agnostic if you’re curious. I suspect you view anyone that isn’t in lock step with you to be “evil” but I’m still happy to share my light with you.
===========================================

I’ve already invalidated your arguments…didn’t have to call you names for that…I just thought it was so appropriate in your case…

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:00 PM

No, you transitioned directly to pathos and have stayed there ever since.

Again… angry gorilla.

RAWWRRRR *beats chest*

That has NOTHING to do with whatever your race is… I only have your statement that you’re black in the first place. For all I know you’re white and trying to shame me into submission with some decietful racial argument. But it doesn’t matter in any case since I’m not saying this because of Race. I compared you to an angry gorilla before you declared your race. And it’s still apt.

You’re trolling around, beating your chest, and trying to shout people into submission. It’s not credible.

Have a case, be treated like a barbarian/child/animal, or be quiet.

Those are your choices. You’ll get nothing better and I expect nothing better from my peers in return. That’s why I make a point of having a case.
===========================================

this is so blatantly and obviously studpid there is no reason to even debate it. its a lie…like everything else you post.

No it isn’t blatantly obvious. You just don’t have an answer. And instead of manning up and admitting it you’re trying to say it’s self evident.

Sorry, doesn’t work that way. You just lost.

I’ve explained at least 10 different things that were blatantly obvious to you among them the definition of the term “ad hominem”. I’ve sat here and given you a giant vocabulary lesson since you clearly don’t know how to speak english very well. And then when I ask you to explain something you turn around and say you don’t have to?

You’re priceless. If any of this education stuck in your head and didn’t just dribble out your ears I’d ask to be paid.

OOOOH PARANOID!! wow cool man!! here’s an article from that PARANOID HERITAGE FOUNDATION!!!!

So what? Gay people have a right to lobby the government just like anyone else.

That isn’t a conspiracy… that’s the first amendment.

See… you’re against freedom. You should join the islamists… they can hand you one of those “freedom go to hell” signs.

obviously you have…but its your nature…like ‘father’ like son…(and no you won’t get the reference)

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:07 PM

What lie have I spread about christians? Name one.

I suspect you’re going to bring up the fascism claim. That was prefaced to the context of seeking to impose values and thinking on others against their will. That is what I meant and I’ve been very clear on that point repeatedly. Ignoring that to boost pathos is pointless.

Karmashock on May 10, 2009 at 5:20 PM

ever hear of a mudskipper? they go on land too…so?

THIS IS GREAT. So now you finally admit we have a fossil of a fish like creature that obviously pushed itself on land and it was found EXACTLY WHERE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY SAID IT SHOULD BE.

Victory is sweet.

and how do you know it won’t be declare as poor as the wrist??

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:16 PM

Because I read the Nature article, I looked at the illistratons and saw the irrefutable example of a mobie neck.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:22 PM

THIS IS GREAT. So now you finally admit we have a fossil of a fish like creature that obviously pushed itself on land and it was found EXACTLY WHERE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY SAID IT SHOULD BE.

actually I haven’t…but even I have..why don’t you tell us what the next ‘evolution’ of the swine flu will be so we can prepare for it???

I can see why you’re an evolutionist…you get excited over nothing…

Because I read the Nature article, I looked at the illistratons and saw the irrefutable example of a mobie neck.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:22 PM

again, so? what does that tell us??

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM

and take your best shot at the tuatara…explain why it has the fastest rate of molecular (DNA) evolution…and yet is a living dinosaur…this should be good….

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:20 PM

Wow, this is dumb. Do you think that ALL evolution is morphological evolution? If no,then we don’t have a problem. If yes, you’re as sharp as a bowling ball.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:28 PM

I have cut no holes in the heads of any baby sir. While you have personally acted disgracefully.

you said you were OK with it…

No it isn’t blatantly obvious. You just don’t have an answer. And instead of manning up and admitting it you’re trying to say it’s self evident.

Sorry, doesn’t work that way. You just lost.

then you’re a fool and idiot…but that was already VERY obvious…

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM

again, so? what does that tell us??

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM

It tells us that we have a creature that has both tetrapod and fish charactrics EXACTLY when fish evolved into tetrapods. DUH.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Wow, this is dumb. Do you think that ALL evolution is morphological evolution? If no,then we don’t have a problem. If yes, you’re as sharp as a bowling ball.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:28 PM

just said it wasn’t didn’t I??? duhhhhh…but all that molecular evolution hasn’t ‘added up’ to morphological evolution now has it???

why not? because micro does NOT add up to macro…what creationists have been saying all along…..

VICTORY!!

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:30 PM

actually I haven’t…but even I have..why don’t you tell us what the next ‘evolution’ of the swine flu will be so we can prepare for it???

Yeah, I would try to change the subject if I was in your position too.

Hehe. Better luck next time.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:30 PM

It tells us that we have a creature that has both tetrapod and fish charactrics EXACTLY when fish evolved into tetrapods. DUH.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM

a more logical explanation is that, like the mud skipper, it is just another animal…that didn’t lead to anything, or ‘evolve’ into anything…

evolutionists see what they want to see in an animal…its called ‘taking the data and making it fit the theory’

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Yeah, I would try to change the subject if I was in your position too.

Hehe. Better luck next time.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:30 PM

seriously how stupid are you?? you say they made this prediction based upon the ALL KNOWING POWER OF EVOLUTION…

and you darwiniacs say resistance to anti-biotics is ‘evolution’ so predict what the next ‘evolution’ of the swine flu virus will be???

looks like you’re just ducking and covering…as usuall…

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:33 PM

a more logical explanation is that, like the mud skipper, it is just another animal…that didn’t lead to anything, or ‘evolve’ into anything…

Wow, still avoiding the fact that Shubin PREDICTED that this kind of creature would be here. Find better talking points.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:34 PM

you said you were OK with it…

No, that’s what YOU said. I said I see no alternative.

You’re lying. I find it interesting that you presume to be a follower of christ and yet you so openly lie.

You’re racking up sins for Saint Peter.

then you’re a fool and idiot…but that was already VERY obvious…

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM

You refuse to answer a simple question when I’ve patiently explained myself to you repeatedly… and then you call me an idiot for asking a question?

Again, this is not what a follower of Christ would do. What are you? You’re clearly not a real Christian.

Karmashock on May 10, 2009 at 5:34 PM

seriously how stupid are you?? you say they made this prediction based upon the ALL KNOWING POWER OF EVOLUTION…

And, desptie many opportunties, you haven’t even TRIED to refute this fact. I gotta go, but it was fun making a fool of you.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:35 PM

fun making a fool of you.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:35 PM

yeah you darwiniacs sure are legends in your own mind…thats about it…

thanks for the laughs…as usual…loser.

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:37 PM

No, that’s what YOU said. I said I see no alternative

yeah there’s a simple alternative DON’T DO IT…make it ILLEGAL…duhhhhh

Again, this is not what a follower of Christ would do. What are you? You’re clearly not a real Christian.

Karmashock on May 10, 2009 at 5:34 PM

did your ‘father’ tell you that??

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:38 PM

yeah there’s a simple alternative DON’T DO IT…make it ILLEGAL…duhhhhh

Your alternative is to invalidate the rights to women. I don’t see that as an alternative.

Ergo, no alternative.

You even ignored my kidney argument. So sad. I’m really trying to explain this to you.

did your ‘father’ tell you that??

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:38 PM

I’m going to guess that my “father” in your opinion is Satan or something, right?

Sigh, talking to you is like trying to talk to a 15th century cardinal… with brain damage.

Karmashock on May 10, 2009 at 5:42 PM

Your alternative is to invalidate the rights to women. I don’t see that as an alternative.

Ergo, no alternative

yep you are of your father, the devil.

evil, racist, sick and twisted.

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Wow, still avoiding the fact that Shubin PREDICTED that this kind of creature would be here. Find better talking points.

justfinethanks on May 10, 2009 at 5:34 PM

I was asking for another prediction, since you darwiniacs know all, see all..etc…even a broke clock is right twice a day…

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:46 PM

yep you are of your father, the devil.

evil, racist, sick and twisted.

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:44 PM

If you’re serious… You’re deranged.

Ironically, if either of us is in league with the devil it’s probably you. I mean, who is perverting the gentle and wise teachings of Christ into a hateful spiteful religion of repression? Who is using a religion of peace and love to justify rage and disharmony?

I don’t know if I believe in the devil, sir. But I am quite certain that you are giving Christianity a bad name and are hurting the church. You are whether you know or it or not doing the work of the devil. You are perverting peace, understanding, and forgiveness into rage, hate, and intolerance.

Do you even realize it? I am an agnostic which means that I try to live in a manner that keeps me good whether god exists or not. Without introspection one cannot keep oneself clean.

You speak as if you’re part of some great religious cause. But I wonder if you’re not just a lost lamb… alone and afraid. You sit there raging against your isolation and ignorance.

It is sad, brother. I do not claim to know the face of God. I am just a man. But I do know that your words are not what a good and just god would want spoken. You are too full of spite and hatred.

Let it go. Live as best you can and do right to your brothers and sisters.

This strife serves none but the lord of chaos.

Am I wrong?

Have I tempted you with false praise? Have I tried to lead you astray to darkness? Nay. I have judged you as I see you. I have offered you my fair hand and the benefit of what little wisdom I have.

A good Christian man would not spit on such gifts as these. Which means you’re either not a good Christian or you’re not a Christian.

Karmashock on May 10, 2009 at 6:04 PM

its called ‘taking the data and making it fit the theory’

Which is exactly what the creationists like Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis to. They say the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old, and they then try to work backwards from that.

Thats a bit hard to deny, since if the answer is in Genesis, and if their own exhibits even show that ID is Biblical based, well then thats exactly what you are talking about. There is no physical evidence the Earth is 6000 years old. Just like their crazy Dinosaurs on Noahs Ark nonsense.

And how many times do Creationisms keep putting up the Evolution = Atheism canard. Darwin was not Atheist, and I have known plenty of Christians who believe in Evolution and are Scientists.

Didnt we just have this debate on the other topic a few days ago?

firepilot on May 10, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Lets also not forget, it was the Social Conservatives who helped elect Jimmah Carter over Gerald Ford. That may cause a few heads to explode.

firepilot on May 10, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Which is exactly what the creationists like Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis to. They say the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old, and they then try to work backwards from that.

firepilot on May 10, 2009 at 8:22 PM

you really don’t know what you are talking about…the discovery institute believes in an old earth whereas AIG does not. so to equate the two is a common darwiniac fallacy.

There is no physical evidence the Earth is 6000 years old. Just like their crazy Dinosaurs on Noahs Ark nonsense

really? well explain to me how they just confirmed that they found hemoglobin in an 80 MILLION year old dinosaur?? you REALLY think soft tissue could last that long??

and go ahead and explain humphreys accurate predictions about mercury’s magnetic fields…

link

And how many times do Creationisms keep putting up the Evolution = Atheism canard. Darwin was not Atheist, and I have known plenty of Christians who believe in Evolution and are Scientists

maybe you should talk to provine…

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

Lets also not forget, it was the Social Conservatives who helped elect Jimmah Carter over Gerald Ford. That may cause a few heads to explode.

like you would have noticed a difference????

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 9:00 AM

When I hear that a person is pregnant It’s a women. When I hear of a marriage it’s a women and a man. If gays unite call it something else besides marriage. Neither becomes pregnant.

mixplix on May 11, 2009 at 9:16 AM


mixplix on May 11, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Marriage isn’t required for pregnancy.

Krydor on May 11, 2009 at 9:57 AM

I’ve been to several GOP conventions this year and I’m seeing the GOP bosses and most of the rank and file trying to retain the RINOs in Congress and find even more RINOs to run for local office. I’ve seen several reports from other states so it’s not just where I am. It’s not looking good for the GOP…

popularpeoplesfront on May 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM

can someone explain to me again how making the republican party smaller is a good thing for the republican party?

beefytee on May 11, 2009 at 11:46 AM

When I hear that a person is pregnant It’s a women. When I hear of a marriage it’s a women and a man. If gays unite call it something else besides marriage. Neither becomes pregnant.

mixplix on May 11, 2009 at 9:16 AM

The concept we’re proposing protects marriage by taking away the power of the government to marry ANYONE.

Marriage will be a private relationship established by your family, church, friends, etc. You don’t even need to get a contract with the government if you don’t want one. And if you do want one then you can get any kind of contract you want.

Marriage can mean whatever you want it to mean. Don’t worry about what other people will do with it. that’s their business.

Think to your own marriage. How can you use it to make better marriages? You can make devoice harder for example. Clarify custodial relationships such that if you do divorce you won’t have an expensive lawsuit. You can grant additional rights not granted by a traditional marriage or withhold rights if you don’t think they should be granted.

It’s better. And from your perspective the best part is that because the actual marriages are PRIVATE you don’t have to recognize them if you don’t want to.

It won’t be the government marrying people. Some people will have contracts granting among other things control of their assets/visitation rights but that’s not marriage.

I’ve been to several GOP conventions this year and I’m seeing the GOP bosses and most of the rank and file trying to retain the RINOs in Congress and find even more RINOs to run for local office. I’ve seen several reports from other states so it’s not just where I am. It’s not looking good for the GOP…

popularpeoplesfront on May 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM

It doesn’t. “purifying” the party will just make us weaker as we shed allies and become increasingly isolated.

Sure Zo won’t have to argue or compromise with anyone but he’ll also have made himself irrelevant.

Without the RR has no future. The Republican party has always been a big tent party and if the RR forgets that then they’re the ones that need to leave the tent.

I am NOT saying we should reach out to the democrats. That’s what sellouts do. But we do need to reach out to our fellow republicans. The RR needs to make peace with the other factions in the party and stop trying to monopolize it.

Karmashock on May 11, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Karmashock on May 11, 2009 at 1:17 PM

you’ve made yourself irrelevant.

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 1:31 PM

you really don’t know what you are talking about…the discovery institute believes in an old earth whereas AIG does not. so to equate the two is a common darwiniac fallacy.

I stand corrected, I was confusing DI with Institute for Creation Research.

really? well explain to me how they just confirmed that they found hemoglobin in an 80 MILLION year old dinosaur?? you REALLY think soft tissue could last that long??

Well, show us this find. I would also be rather curious to see what the people who actually found it wrote about it.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.

Very clever of you to substitute Naturalistic Evolution, in place of what I used, which is Evolution. However, if we cant use Young Earth Creationism in place of all creationists, nor can you use Naturalistic Evolution in place of Evolution.

Of course you did not use Deistic Evolution for some reason, which many evolutionists have. Why didn’t you use that term? Naturalistic Evolution is not Anti God anyways, it just assumes that everything is happening naturally and without intervention.

and go ahead and explain humphreys accurate predictions about mercury’s magnetic fields…

Sure,

JUNK SCIENCE

To say that you can extrapolate the age of the Universe, from just TWO DATA POINTS of Mercuries magnetic fields? Magnetic Fields are dynamic and changing. If you really want to get into Geomagnetism, then you have to include the massive magnetic evidence on Earth, which points to a very old age.

You certainly can not use magnetism and equate with with a half life like you can with radiation. Mercuries Magnetic field is not some fossil relic, gradually dying. It is DYNAMIC. That by itself makes Humphries claim baseless.

But hey, can you find ANYONE in Planetary Sciences who thinks the data shows a 6000 year old planet?

firepilot on May 11, 2009 at 2:02 PM

can someone explain to me again how making the republican party smaller is a good thing for the republican party?

beefytee

Its not a good thing. And we are seeing some social conservatives wanting to turn the GOP into a political party that is foremost about Christian values and less about the traditional Republican views on limited government.

And of course you can ever read on here where they have pretty much threaten to take their ball and go play elsewhere if they do not get their way, and of course they also claim the Republican Party IS about them. Of course they are the ones who came to the GOP late anyways, after Social Conservatives who at one time held sway in the Democratic Party, decided to leave it.

I want the Republican Party to be home to people of any religion. Someone who is Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, Wiccan, Taoist, Buddhist, Flying Spaghetti Monster, should be able to feel just as at home in the GOP as someone who is Christian, since we should have a common philosophy of the role of limited government, individual freedom, and strong defense.

firepilot on May 11, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Well, show us this find. I would also be rather curious to see what the people who actually found it wrote about it.

here’s the link…actually they say nothing about it, other than mention the age…I just find it hard to believe any soft tissue could last that long…

link

Very clever of you to substitute Naturalistic Evolution, in place of what I used, which is Evolution. However, if we cant use Young Earth Creationism in place of all creationists, nor can you use Naturalistic Evolution in place of Evolution.

its not clever of me, thats what provine said…but isn’t evolution totally naturalistic? wouldn’t provine know what evolution is all about?

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

But hey, can you find ANYONE in Planetary Sciences who thinks the data shows a 6000 year old planet?

firepilot on May 11, 2009 at 2:02 PM

I honestly don’t know the age of the universe, or the earth…I doubt the billions of years…because of odd little things like lack of ethane oceans on Titan’s moons..and things like the decay of the magnetic fields…would they still exist if they are in a state of decay? and of course the dinosaur hemoglobin…

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 2:31 PM

I want the Republican Party to be home to people of any religion. Someone who is Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, Wiccan, Taoist, Buddhist, Flying Spaghetti Monster, should be able to feel just as at home in the GOP as someone who is Christian, since we should have a common philosophy of the role of limited government, individual freedom, and strong defense.

firepilot on May 11, 2009 at 2:11 PM

social conservatives don’t mind people from other religions, or points of view..its just we’re not going to vote for pro-abortion/pro-gay marriage types just to get a smaller government, which those people (like AHNULD) never ever deliver…

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 2:32 PM

we have people like megan (mooo) mccain who apparently don’t want those who are conservative on the social issues in the party…Frum doesn’t want us around either…they apparently want a democrat-lite party…which is pretty much what it is anyway…

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Not many people are PRO-Abortion, with the exception of far leftists and moonbats who want abortion to be promoted and paid for by the government.

There is a lot of different views and just because someone is not for a total abolition of abortion, does not make them pro-abortion either. Just like how we may not know everything about how life on earth changes, is not evidence for young earth creationism either.

And stop with the fallacy that Mercurys magnetic field is something made ones that is now decaying. Its junk science promoted by your Humphries person and is just misleading, when the general view is that it is a Dynamo.

social conservatives don’t mind people from other religions, or points of view..its just we’re not going to vote for pro-abortion/pro-gay marriage types just to get a smaller government, which those people (like AHNULD) never ever deliver…

So you will tolerate them as long as they have the right social views?

Actually if we need to make marriage the platform of the GOP, then we should either make divorce illegal illegal then. Because heterosexual divorce is more of a threat to marriage than gays every could be.

firepilot on May 11, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Firepilot, I’m your kind of republican. I’m a Barry Goldwater Republican.

beefytee on May 11, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Help me out with this. I thought being a Republican meant that you supported a small and limited government that is designed to essentially serve and protect. Being a social liberal (support of welfare programs, tax support for abortions, broadening legal definitions such as marriage, not wanting to fund military, refusing to secure borders) means that you are more than likely going to support programs that expand the goverment in the name of your social liberalism. As a politician, eventually you have to put your money where your mouth is. In my view, you cannot profess social liberalism and stand by the limited government arguement. I would also like to clarify that I don’t think if someone disagrees on one issue they shouldn’t be considered a Republican. What I am tired of are so called Republicans with whom I am hard pressed to find anything I can agree with.

MichiganMatt on May 11, 2009 at 3:25 PM

social conservatives don’t mind people from other religions, or points of view..its just we’re not going to vote for pro-abortion/pro-gay marriage types just to get a smaller government, which those people (like AHNULD) never ever deliver…

right4life, you have just announced that your vote is for sale and that you are open for business – making social views the absolute litmus test for an electable candidate permits those with otherwise destructive policy opinions to buy your vote because they will pay lip-service to your pet issue, and causes you to pass over strong fiscal conservatives who would fight to protect your rights. We all want the ideal candidate who represents fiscal, defense, and social conservatism, but those don’t come along very often, so it’s self-defeating to be a single-issue voter. If you prioritize social issues over fiscal or defense, fine, but recognize that others will prioritize differently, and they are often the ones defending the economic rights that you would so willingly toss aside.

Animator Girl on May 11, 2009 at 3:34 PM

More and more I’m becoming the mind that Conservatives are on the RIGHT side of things here.

The Obama house of cards will FALL. And the exciting thing is – “moderate” Republicans are look like fools when it does. When it happens – the answer all along will have been clear – and moderates will have been seen to have been on the wrong side of things – standing WITH Obama.

So go for it modie’s – make all the noise you want – we need a historical record to point at when the fall comes and your turn to walk into the night is upon you.

HondaV65 on May 11, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Also, consider that if a politician is truly a “small-government” advocate, then he or she really cannot enforce their particular social issues, because additional social legislation always adds to government rather than reducing it. In that sense, social conservatives have less to fear from a small-government libertarian than they might think. A small-government politician cannot defend social programs or Constitutional Amendments that require state money in order to change the structure of society. So yes, as a social con myself, I’d vote for a social moderate if they had a dependable small-government record – they would represent a far greater gain than a threat.

Animator Girl on May 11, 2009 at 3:40 PM

right4life, you have just announced that your vote is for sale and that you are open for business – making social views the absolute litmus test for an electable candidate permits those with otherwise destructive policy opinions to buy your vote because they will pay lip-service to your pet issue, and causes you to pass over strong fiscal conservatives who would fight to protect your rights. We all want the ideal candidate who represents fiscal, defense, and social conservatism, but those don’t come along very often, so it’s self-defeating to be a single-issue voter. If you prioritize social issues over fiscal or defense, fine, but recognize that others will prioritize differently, and they are often the ones defending the economic rights that you would so willingly toss aside.

Animator Girl on May 11, 2009 at 3:34 PM

I agree with you Animator Girl – this guy should vote for Conservatives who kill babies instead. / rollseyes

First of all – I can’t offhand think of too many “great” fiscal Conservatives that aren’t “pro-life”.

McCain? Pro-Life
Palin? Pro-Life
Romney? Say’s he’s Pro-Life
Huckabee? Pro-Life

Where’s all these staunch PRO-CHOICE FISCAL CONSERVATIVES?

There are very few of them.

Democratic Party is full of Pro-Choice folks – and most of ‘em look like tax-n-spend too … now don’t they?

Fact is – fiscal conservatives are also more likey to be social conservatives.

HondaV65 on May 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Firepilot, I’m your kind of republican. I’m a Barry Goldwater Republican.

beefytee

Thanks. Barry was a Republican when the Social Conservatives were all Democrats, yet if Barry were alive and posting in here today, they would be telling him he is a RINO and to get the hell out.

Also, consider that if a politician is truly a “small-government” advocate, then he or she really cannot enforce their particular social issues, because additional social legislation always adds to government rather than reducing it.
Animator Girl

Thats my philosophy as a small government Republican, is that I dont want to impose my own ideals and beliefs on others, because its just not the governments job. I do not trust the government to do for me, what I can do for myself.

I also do not want the government promoting a particular religion or religious views either.

I am actually much more in favor of the federal government not being involved in marriage whatsoever, than trying to involve itself in it, and invariably screwing it up like most everything else. Let that be a local and state issue, and for the individual.

Self reliance and rugged individualism has been part of what founded our country. Social convervatives (and social liberals) seem to think the individual does not know best and needs the hand of government in their lives.

here’s the link…actually they say nothing about it, other than mention the age…I just find it hard to believe any soft tissue could last that long…

link

I dont. Every heard of insects preserved, because they got encased in amber?

http://www.mineralminers.com/html/ambmins.stm

firepilot on May 11, 2009 at 4:09 PM

you’ve made yourself irrelevant.

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Considering that almost everything you say is the exact opposite of the truth… yes. You’re right. I have made myself relevant.
===============================================

So go for it modie’s – make all the noise you want – we need a historical record to point at when the fall comes and your turn to walk into the night is upon you.

HondaV65 on May 11, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Just because we don’t share your views doesn’t mean we share obamas or are a moderate position between the two.

From our perspective the RR is MORE moderate then we are on fiscal policy, freedom, and many other issues.

The RR will compromise on issues we will not to get their abortion and anti gay issues passed. Yes, we don’t care about abortion or anti gay stuff as much as you do. In fact, many of us find the whole topic embarrassing and really wish you’d leave people alone. But at the same time we have other issues that we care about a whole lot more that the RR urinates on pretty much at every opportunity.

Our coalition is built upon the principle of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The socialists are coming for BOTH of us. They want to impose their system on our society that will put everything under government control and while they’re at it they’re going to keep pushing atheism.

THAT is the basis of our alliance. That is why we’ve worked together for so many years. If you throw us under the bus. And remember WHAT this thread is about. It’s about the RR telling anyone that doesn’t agree with them to leave. Well, without your allies RR you’re screwed. And what’s more you’re the EASIEST portion of the party to replace. There are a LOT of people in this country that would support the limited government cause if it weren’t covered with the RR’s stink.

We’ve put up with it because you’re a large voting block and we needed the support. But if you force it the alliance will end. Have respect for your allies or the coalition dies now.

Karmashock on May 11, 2009 at 4:19 PM

right4life, you have just announced that your vote is for sale and that you are open for business – making social views the absolute litmus test for an electable candidate permits those with otherwise destructive policy opinions to buy your vote because they will pay lip-service to your pet issue,

of course my vote is for sale..if there was a democrat who was more conservative than a republican, like Zell Miller, I would vote for him…I put principles over party.

so who is this small government/liberal social issue politician that would actually cut government?? did ARNOLD??? who is your model politician?

but I won’t vote for anyone who is not pro-life and against gay marriage…regardless of their other positions…sorry.

but then, as far as I can tell…any politician who is not pro-life is squishy on all the other issues anyway…

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Fact is – fiscal conservatives are also more likey to be social conservatives.

HondaV65 on May 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM

and thats the bottom line!!

(cause R4L said so (a little stone-cold steve austin lingo there))

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 4:28 PM

We’ve put up with it because you’re a large voting block and we needed the support. But if you force it the alliance will end. Have respect for your allies or the coalition dies now.

Karmashock on May 11, 2009 at 4:19 PM

let it die…I would never align myself with someone like you.

we don’t need or want you to *put up* with us..cause we sure as hell ain’t gonna put up with the likes of you…

have a nice day!

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 4:30 PM

“Prominent libertarian Republicans include the Former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United States Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan.[2] economist Milton Friedman,[3] actor and filmmaker Clint Eastwood,[4] radio talk show hosts Neal Boortz and Larry Elder,[5] humorist P.J. O’Rourke, former Playgirl Editor Michelle Zipp[6][7] and television personalities Tucker Carlson and Dennis Miller. Political philosophers admired by libertarian Republicans include Thomas Jefferson, Friedrich Hayek, Adam Smith, John Locke, James Madison, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and John Stuart Mill.

Prominent elected libertarian or libertarian-leaning Republicans include Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, Georgia Congressman Paul Broun, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, former New Mexico Governor Gary E. Johnson, Michigan State Representative Leon Drolet, and former Arizona Senator Barry M. Goldwater.[8]”

Fact is – fiscal conservatives are also more likey to be social conservatives.

HondaV65 on May 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Well, considering how Social Conservatives used to be a major block of the Democratic Party, oh and were big supporters of the New Deal, it apparently does not work in reverse that Social Conservatives will be be fiscal conservatives.

so who is this small government/liberal social issue politician that would actually cut government?? did ARNOLD??? who is your model politician?

I will take 1 Thomas Jefferson over ever Social Conservative out there who wants more more sex and religion as part of politics and government.

but I won’t vote for anyone who is not pro-life and against gay marriage…regardless of their other positions…sorry.

but then, as far as I can tell…any politician who is not pro-life is squishy on all the other issues anyway…

Tell us again why the Deep South, was so socially conservative and so pro New Deal.

So basically as long as the GOP gives people a political home and makes issues like gay marriage and abortion the most important, but when that ceases, you will bolt? Thats not exactly prinicipled.

Where, back to the Democratic Party? Well, considering how much we have to thank the social conservatives for giving us Lyndon Johnson and Jimmah Carter, and supporting the New Deal.

Whats next? Bring back Blue Laws on a federal level too?

firepilot on May 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM

United States Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan

greenspan??? a libertarian??? as far as I can tell he’s a government-man all the way…

Ron Paul is pro-life. as is mark sanford. as is bob barr as is jeff flake…

by the libertarians defintion, these people are NOT libertarians.

I will take 1 Thomas Jefferson over ever Social Conservative out there who wants more more sex and religion as part of politics and government.

but you couldn’t name anyone who is alive…telling.

Tell us again why the Deep South, was so socially conservative and so pro New Deal.

the whole country was pro new deal. the south was reliably democrat for reasons other than economic.

and yes given the way the republican party treats us, why not go back to the democrats?

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 4:53 PM

I will take 1 Thomas Jefferson over ever Social Conservative out there who wants more more sex and religion as part of politics and government.

and anyone who supports abortion, gay marriage, etc is NOT conservative…by definition.

religion is ALWAYS part of politics…what you want is more of the religion of atheism in politics…

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 4:55 PM

but you couldn’t name anyone who is alive…telling.

I just gave you a list. Besides, I would take a dead Jefferson over some of these latest baffoons who embarrass the Republican party.

Oh and since you would like the name of one living, Gary Johnson. He is actually entertaining the idea of GOP run in 2012, and is definitely about the GOP getting back to its roots.

“Under Johnson’s administration, New Mexico experienced the longest period without a tax increase in the state’s history, the rate of growth in the state government was cut in half, half of the state’s prisons were privatized, state Medicaid was shifted to managed care, and the state was left with approximately 1,000 fewer employees (with no firings) and a budget surplus.[9] Johnson vetoed 750 bills (which was more than all the vetoes of the other 49 Governors in the country at that time, combined), which earned him the nickname Gary “Veto” Johnson.[10]”

I would say that is more fiscally conservative and more what being a Republican is about, than anyone else, and definitely more than Social Conservatives who want matters of sex, marriage and religion to be prominent over real Republican values like limited government responsible fiscal policies.

Gary Johnson is the anti-thesis of everything Obama stands for.

the whole country was pro new deal. the south was reliably democrat for reasons other than economic.

No, the whole country was not pro New Deal. Republicans were against it. Where were all the social conservatives then? Oh they were supporting big government ideas.

yes, we also know they had been Democrat, partly because Lincoln was a Republican.

and yes given the way the republican party treats us, why not go back to the democrats?

So you all showed up late to the GOP and now want to be in charge of it all. No thanks.

firepilot on May 11, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Grrrr

but you couldn’t name anyone who is alive…telling.

I just gave you a list. Besides, I would take a dead Jefferson over some of these latest baffoons who embarrass the Republican party.

Oh and since you would like the name of one living, Gary Johnson. He is actually entertaining the idea of GOP run in 2012, and is definitely about the GOP getting back to its roots

“Under Johnson’s administration, New Mexico experienced the longest period without a tax increase in the state’s history, the rate of growth in the state government was cut in half, half of the state’s prisons were privatized, state Medicaid was shifted to managed care, and the state was left with approximately 1,000 fewer employees (with no firings) and a budget surplus.[9] Johnson vetoed 750 bills (which was more than all the vetoes of the other 49 Governors in the country at that time, combined), which earned him the nickname Gary “Veto” Johnson.[10]”

I would say that is more fiscally conservative and more what being a Republican is about, than anyone else, and definitely more than Social Conservatives who want matters of sex, marriage and religion to be prominent over real Republican values like limited government responsible fiscal policies.

Gary Johnson is the anti-thesis of everything Obama stands for.

the whole country was pro new deal. the south was reliably democrat for reasons other than economic.

No, the whole country was not pro New Deal. Republicans were against it. Where were all the social conservatives then? Oh they were supporting big government ideas.

yes, we also know they had been Democrat, partly because Lincoln was a Republican.

and yes given the way the republican party treats us, why not go back to the democrats?

So you all showed up late to the GOP and now want to be in charge of it all. No thanks

religion is ALWAYS part of politics…what you want is more of the religion of atheism in politics…

Thats exactly it. Religion DOES NOT have to be part of politics and political platforms. That is about as personal of an issue as it gets. You seem to make plenty of assumptions, and now it is if someone does not want religion as part of a political party platform, then we must be atheists and for atheism.

I think its not so much that you want religion as part of politics, is that you want YOUR religion as part of politics and goverment. As soon as it was someone was elected of a different religion, then you would be immediately wanting religion out of politics, again until someone of your own views was elected.

firepilot on May 11, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Zos rant is one of the funniest and most compellingly logical arguments I’ve heard in months. Bring on more of this guy. He’s great.

And he’s right about the oil!

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 11, 2009 at 7:48 PM

So you all showed up late to the GOP and now want to be in charge of it all. No thanks.

firepilot on May 11, 2009 at 5:04 PM

You’re wrong. I can pretty much guarantee you I’m older than you, so YOU showed up late to the “party”. And I’ve been a conservative for half a century. And just for your info, (except for my time in the service) it’s all been in the South.

Social conservatism (aka having morals) MUST be a part of the conservative platform. Without morals we’re just the slightly less spendthrift party (dem lite). Well guess what? That’s exactly what we’ve been for the last decade. And last election it was even worse.

We had a social-liberal repub running for pres and we got our butts handed to us. Yes, he was pro-life (so is two-thirds of America – deal with it), but nowhere else was he truly conservative. Do you see where going with people like you got us? Absolutely nowhere. And now you want even more of it.

No thanks. I’d rather be the “party of no”. Even better – the party of “HELL NO”!

Squiggy on May 11, 2009 at 7:54 PM

let it die…I would never align myself with someone like you.
right4life on May 11, 2009 at 4:30 PM

First, you’re still not explaining how you’re a good Christian while at the same time lying and being rude?

Second, you got that backwards. I allied with you. Before we reached out to you, the evangelicals were democrats.

WE ALLIED WITH YOU. Not the other way around. We needed support and so we LET you join us.

Now you think to kick us out? Don’t make me laugh. And if you want to leave, you know where the door is. You’re replaceable. Your arrogance and inability to compromise means you’ll find no other allies which means you’ll be DEAD as a political force.

We however will make new deals. Probably with your enemies who will none the less give us what we want to your cost.

We will survive. So go ahead and make our day, punk.
=============================================
In regards to the RR, it should be remembered that they used to be democrats. The Republicans made a deal with them to stave off socialism. The deal was simple.

The socialists want to destroy your religion and they want to destroy the individual spirit of America.

In return for help protecting your religion you are expected to help us protect the individual liberties of Americans.

Honor the pact or it is null and we will make other arrangements. Under no circumstances will we let anyone threaten our freedom. If that means siding with some atheists that happen to want your religion dead but will protect individual liberties… then fine. We are not the ones betraying you. Remember, we will keep the pact and things will go on as they have in the past. But you must continue to hold up your end of the bargain.

Making the false assumption that you own the party and can dictate terms indifferent to the wishes of other coalition members is a fatal mistake. This is the worst time to push for a schism, but if you push us we’ll have no choice.

This is a call for peace between us and mutual respect. But know that if you try to brute force your will upon your other coalition members, you’ll get the rug pulled out from underneath you. Do not be foolish. The last thing you want to do is piss off the last few allies you have left.

Karmashock on May 11, 2009 at 8:49 PM

First, you’re still not explaining how you’re a good Christian while at the same time lying and being rude?

post your proof, or apologize, but you won’t that would take a man of integrity and honor.

Second, you got that backwards. I allied with you. Before we reached out to you, the evangelicals were democrats.

BS.

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 9:37 PM

The socialists want to destroy your religion and they want to destroy the individual spirit of America.

In return for help protecting your religion you are expected to help us protect the individual liberties of Americans.

you people that want gay marriage are trying to destroy our FREEDOM of religion…nothing you or the DEVIL himself can do to destroy christianity. get a clue.

… then fine. We are not the ones betraying you. Remember, we will keep the pact and things will go on as they have in the past. But you must continue to hold up your end of the bargain.

we don’t sign deals with the devil…get a clue. you keep babbling about this ‘bargain’ there AIN’T NO BARGAIN.

and we could give a rat’s a** about your threats, and whatever BS you want to babble on about. duhhhhhh

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 9:39 PM

No, the whole country was not pro New Deal. Republicans were against it. Where were all the social conservatives then? Oh they were supporting big government ideas

this is idiotic…get a clue…HOOVER did BUSH. the republicans have ALWAYS been ‘democrat-lites’ it was only the CONSERVATIVE movement…founded by BUCKLEY…that changed the party…and not for long, as we have seen with BUSH, MCCAIN….etc..they’re back to the go-along to get-along me-too republicans…

people like me are CONSERVATIVE…and I have been that way before you were born sonny boy. and we had an insurgent movement within the republicans…you blue-blood morons were NEVER conservative until we came along…get a clue.

oh and you can belittle Humphreys all you want..but his predictions were RIGHT…and the ‘scientists’ were not.

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 9:43 PM

The last thing you want to do is piss off the last few allies you have left.

Karmashock on May 11, 2009 at 8:49 PM

as I said many times, moron, and you don’t get it…the black and latinos voted WITH US against gay marriage…

you are the one without allies….loser…duhhhh

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 9:44 PM

Thats exactly it. Religion DOES NOT have to be part of politics and political platforms. That is about as personal of an issue as it gets. You seem to make plenty of assumptions, and now it is if someone does not want religion as part of a political party platform, then we must be atheists and for atheism.

yeah it does…and I sure ain’t gonna be a part of your atheist/darwiniac platform

conservative evolutionist…an oxymoron if I EVER heard one…

you and your wacko friend ‘shellshock’ are NOT conservative…I am what my monikor says ..RIGHT FOR LIFE…

and I have been that way for a very long time…and you are not…and never will be. I was reading the National Review, Solzhenitsyn, Burnham, Chambers, etc, before you were born…

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 9:50 PM

did those ‘conservative’ republicans in the 20s try to roll back the Federal reserve??? no…did any republican try to roll back ANY of the new deal??? no….they were all PROGESSIVES…in the 30s…everyone was a socialist…there were only a few voices protesting it..AND THEY WERE NOT REPUBLICANS…they were ‘oddballs’ like Chambers, Burnham, Orwell, etc.

get a clue, and try history 101…sheesh…

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 9:54 PM

oh and fireplot I notice you missed this…or didn’t want to comment on it..

Ron Paul is pro-life. as is mark sanford. as is bob barr as is jeff flake…

by the libertarians defintion, these people are NOT libertarians.

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 9:56 PM

look at kennedy and nixon..kennedy gave us tax cuts..and nixon gave us the EPA and affirmative action…

oh yeah republicans have always been ‘conservatie’ sure….

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 10:12 PM

post your proof, or apologize, but you won’t that would take a man of integrity and honor.

Hey, it’s between you and God, pal. If you think Saint Peter isn’t keeping tabs on your deceit, hostility, and strife… then you can’t be much of a Christian. I find it interesting that many people that claim to be judged by God feel no shame at acting like jerks.

BS.

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 9:37 PM

No, that’s a fact. Look at which areas voted for democrats in the 1950-60s. The evangelicals broke with the democrats largely over race.

When it became clear that the dixicrats had finally lost the racism war after a civil war and decades of political losses. Then you allied with the Republicans against the socialists in your former party. The deal was very simple. You help us defeat the New Deal, great society, socialism stuff and we help you protect your culture.

That’s the bargain. If you can’t handle that then you’re not living in reality. We are fine with maintaining the relationship. But pretending that you’ve stood alone all this time is irrational.
================================================

you people that want gay marriage are trying to destroy our FREEDOM of religion…nothing you or the DEVIL himself can do to destroy christianity. get a clue.

First, we don’t really care about gay marriage one way or the other. It’s not important to us. We know it’s important to you though and so we’ve taken steps to act in your interest. However, we are not all powerful and are not capable of winning UNWINNABLE fights. There are aspects of this political struggle that are untenable. That said, we can take steps to short circuit our opponent’s advance. I’ve suggested privatizing marriage for example that would take the power out of the government’s hands.

You didn’t like that though so I don’t know what else to suggest. Just sitting there and sulking doesn’t accomplish anything.

we don’t sign deals with the devil…get a clue. you keep babbling about this ‘bargain’ there AIN’T NO BARGAIN.

Well, if we’re the devil, you signed that pact in the 1960s and have been pretty good allies until recently. Your irrational delusions might make the pact unsustainable… your choice. But don’t get mad at us when you’re the one dissolving the arrangement. We’ll have to make a deal with someone else to survive.

Nothing personal.

and we could give a rat’s a** about your threats, and whatever BS you want to babble on about. duhhhhhh
right4life on May 11, 2009 at 9:39 PM

It’s not a threat. It’s a political imperitive. Just as everyone must eat and breath to live, we must make arrangements to survive. If you betray us then we’ll have to make other arrangements.

It’s not a threat. It’s a fact.
================================================

as I said many times, moron, and you don’t get it…the black and latinos voted WITH US against gay marriage…

you are the one without allies….loser…duhhhh

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 9:44 PM

So what? How long do you think that will last? They still won’t put you in office. All they did was vote for a proposition.

I’ll further point out that we’ve won lots of fiscal propositions in California. So what does that tell you?

You think you’ll be able to ride that to get people like Huckabee in office? Dream on. Without us you’re a dead movement… mostly brain dead… but dead nonetheless.

And if you think we’ve undermined you in the past, wait until we’re not your allies any more… and our new allies require us to attack you as part of a new bargain. You have no idea. I know I know, you’re going to respond with more childish bravado.

You won’t like it. The price of buying into a new alliance will be painful for us as well if that means anything to you. We don’t want to do it. But if you give us no choice then we have no choice.
====================================================

yeah it does…and I sure ain’t gonna be a part of your atheist/darwiniac platform

conservative evolutionist…an oxymoron if I EVER heard one…

you and your wacko friend ’shellshock’ are NOT conservative…I am what my monikor says ..RIGHT FOR LIFE…
right4life on May 11, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Separation of church and state. If you want to live under religious law then go live in Syria with the other barbarians.
============================================

did those ‘conservative’ republicans in the 20s try to roll back the Federal reserve??? no…did any republican try to roll back ANY of the new deal??? no….they were all PROGESSIVES…in the 30s…everyone was a socialist…there were only a few voices protesting it..AND THEY WERE NOT REPUBLICANS…they were ‘oddballs’ like Chambers, Burnham, Orwell, etc.

get a clue, and try history 101…sheesh…

right4life on May 11, 2009 at 9:54 PM

This is either ignorant or a lie. I’m leaning towards simple ignorance but I can’t be sure with you. The republicans worked very hard to roll back the new deal and contain Roosevelt. We just failed. There’s a huge difference between not trying and not succeeding. Roosevelt was incredibly powerful.

He threatened the very constitution. When we tried to contain him with it he threatened to just appoint so many judges that he could change it to say whatever he wanted.

He was a disaster. We did what we could to stop him. But Hoover made so many mistakes that we were a very weak party at the time. So there wasn’t much we could do. People were angry and Roosevelt fed that anger and used it as a weapon.

Dark times.

Karmashock on May 11, 2009 at 10:23 PM

What is going on?

What is wrong with a Goldwater conservative?
I don’t personally associate with anyone who would ban a Civil Union between people of the same sex–and don’t understand what the problem is with giving legal protection to people who would have a covenant with one another.

The only thing I object to is an attempt to create a State Religion–which is exactly what you would be doing if you expand the word “Marriage” to mean more than that which is defined by Church Doctrine.

The Churches of Sweden will be legally obligated to host Same-Sex-Marriage Ceremonies–they will be open to law suits if they refuse to do so. Tell me that-THAT is a clear division of Church and State.

I do not want to criminalize abortion–but I do not think that confiscated monies from those who strongly believe that it is a grevious sin should be used to pay for abortions, encourage abortions or for “baby-in-a-blender” stem-cell research (as opposed to adult-stem-cell research.) OR for the creation of chimeras (which are a mixture of human and animal DNA for research or spare parts.)

As a Goldwater conservative, I don’t believe in completely unbridled Capitalism; I don’t believe in Social Engineering either. Clear and concise regulation defines appropriate behavior. It need not be complicated or obtuse. It is when attempts are made to do Social Engineering that the laws become an ever-changing morass of arcane rules which even the writers cannot apply. Convoluted laws create monopolies and protected groups; inevitably, they intensify the problems for which they were written to “solve”.

As a Goldwater Conservative, I believe that the obligations, responsibilities and authority of each layer of Governance should be well defined and immutable. When the Federal Government attempts Central planning, you have eliminated the clarity necessary for governance. You also duplicate the functions which are already in place at the local and State levels of Government. The end result is that all can escape responsibility for their actions in the bureaucracy. Local governments can blame State and Federal Governments for pot-holes in the roads for which they are responsible and collect taxes to pay for!!! It is the same for any of the legitimate functions of Local and State Governments! How in [insert your favorite deity here] name can anyone disagree with that????

As a Goldwater Conservative: I like wild-flowers, and would have public lands used intelligently and carefully to preserve them for future generations. I know that many of the forests were replanted with hybrid trees (which need to be harvested) when diseases wiped out many of the original ones. The harvesting of the trees should be done with appropriate care, and the roads and cleanup should be paid by those who do the harvesting. The costs of using public lands should be the same as that for private land, as the tax-payers should not be subsidizing one group over another.
(True “old-growth” areas with the original species should be carefully maintained and preserved.)

And, with regard to private land; if you make a mess, you are obligated to clean it up. That also means you MUST restore the watersheds and subsurface water flows as the repurcussions extend beyond the boundaries of your land.

Again, EDUCATED people, who actually know about environmental issues generally agree with me.

Frankly, I can’t think of anything which I read by Goldwater–speaking of his later years–with which I disagree. Maybe I missed something.

Eqwatz on May 11, 2009 at 10:56 PM

Eh, it’s high time for a third party anyway. All we need is someone to lead it. Hmmm.

I’ve actually been “toying” with the idea of a “Southern Republican Party” and a “Northern Republican Party”. A method to create this “big tent” that everyone wants.

It would require split fund raising – that’s the downside.

On the upside – it allows Northern Republicans to water down their principles and run for the seats they want to win – since winning is the only important thing to them. And it allows the Southern Republicans to call Obama a Socialist – because that’s what he is and we roll righteously truthful.

Every four years we can come together at the Convention and duke it out – majority rules.

But … yah – the fundraising has to be split – no “affirmative action” in the form of campaign support to moderates who can’t raise money and feel that the Conservatives should hand them welfare.

HondaV65 on May 11, 2009 at 11:29 PM

I’ve actually been “toying” with the idea of a “Southern Republican Party” and a “Northern Republican Party”. A method to create this “big tent” that everyone wants.

It would require split fund raising – that’s the downside.

On the upside – it allows Northern Republicans to water down their principles and run for the seats they want to win – since winning is the only important thing to them. And it allows the Southern Republicans to call Obama a Socialist – because that’s what he is and we roll righteously truthful.

Every four years we can come together at the Convention and duke it out – majority rules.

But … yah – the fundraising has to be split – no “affirmative action” in the form of campaign support to moderates who can’t raise money and feel that the Conservatives should hand them welfare.

HondaV65 on May 11, 2009 at 11:29 PM

If the party splits there isn’t any reason to bother with any formal union at all. It would be more logical to just let you guys rejoin the democrats who might be happy to give you some of your religious issues in return for your support of socialism. Likewise, we’d do better then you’d think of pulling some people back ot the republican party that only left because of our support for said religious issues.

Look, we can trade ultimatums all day. It boils down to whether or not we can hang together when the next campaign season hits us. And the next one is going to be fierce. The democrats want to cement their hold on congress. If we don’t take some seats back next election we’re both in a lot of trouble. The crisis is causing enough confusion that it’s actually making it hard for the democrats to legislate. But in two years they’ll start getting down the nitty gritty and we’d better have taken some seats back by then or they’ll eat us alive.

We can’t afford this foolish bravado anymore. We are being out maneuvered. We have to play the game smarter or we’re going to get pulverized. This faith that some Christians have in victory can be a blindness when it causes them to not be careful. It’s like the “fighting spirit” that the imperial japanese had when they fought the US. They thought that they’d have to win because they had superior fighting spirit and the support of the Emperor. Where as our people relied on mass produced AA guns and superior battle tactics.

Playing stupid is a sucker’s game. We need to help each other or we’ll both lose.

Karmashock on May 11, 2009 at 11:58 PM

If the party splits there isn’t any reason to bother with any formal union at all. It would be more logical to just let you guys rejoin the democrats who might be happy to give you some of your religious issues in return for your support of socialism.

You keep claiming that “social conservatives” used to be dems. Well it ain’t so no mo’. YOU are far more aligned with them than we are. Their leftist social policies are all that really matter to them. The massive spending isn’t the goal – it’s the means. You’re like Herbert Hoover – so enamored of one of your principles you can’t see how that affects anything else. YOU go join the dems – maybe we can use another Zell Miller (but he had integrity, so it’s a coin toss here).

Playing stupid is a sucker’s game. We need to help each other or we’ll both lose.

But only if we help you. I really don’t see you giving anything.

And when you get down to it – with a handle like “Karmashock”, you’re suspect already.

Squiggy on May 12, 2009 at 5:47 AM

You keep claiming that “social conservatives” used to be dems.

That’s not a claim. That’s a fact.

YOU are far more aligned with them than we are. Their leftist social policies are all that really matter to them.

Only from your perspective. The libertarians are not linked to the RR for no reason. We have little choice. Our foe is socialism. The democrats will not compromise on socialism.

They’re more likely to give you some of your religious issues then they are to give us freedom.

What they want ultimately is control. That’s the critical factor. You don’t want control so much as you want your religion to have influence on the government. Well, they’ll probably give that to you if in return it increases their power.

We however, will not give them more power under any circumstances. Our objective is to reduce the power of government. Our ultimate objective is to have the government be as limited as possible while their objective is to have it be in control of everything.

We are night and day. We cannot coexist. As it is we only keep the peace through balance. That is we can coexist so long as neither of us wins. But if the socialists win then we’ll be crushed and controlled. If we win we’ll shatter the mechanisms of government the socialists wish to take control over… thus making their power impossible.

To confuse us as potential allies is to declare your ignorance of our nature. We cannot coexist with them.

Our best bet if we’re betrayed by the RR is to try and peel away some of the democrat’s social moderates that agree with our fiscal policy and philosophy on the position of government. Hopefully we can cobbled enough of a coalition together from that and whatever we can salvage from the ruins of the Republican party to make a stand.

Beyond that we’d be screwed. That said, if the RR betrayed us they’d be in worse shape if anything.

Anyway, the point is that the socialists are after both of our throats. By allying with each other we can protect each other and hopefully advance our agendas. Our agendas are NOT the same but we generally share the same enemies.

It’s a marriage of necessity. Much like how kings would sometimes marry the daughters of other kings powerful kings to cement a relationship against yet another king. None of the kings especially like each other. But everyone has to choose sides. If the democrats would give us what we want (limited government), then you’re right. We’d sell you out. But then if the democrats gave you what you want (abortion, various anti gay legislation, etc) you’d sell us out.

so lets not play too holier then thou, please.

The massive spending isn’t the goal – it’s the means. You’re like Herbert Hoover – so enamored of one of your principles you can’t see how that affects anything else. YOU go join the dems – maybe we can use another Zell Miller (but he had integrity, so it’s a coin toss here).

I know the massive spending isn’t the goal. It’s a means of control and power. You underestimate us if you think we don’t understand that. That is WHY we care about it.

We’re not trying to save money. The money isn’t important. Money is effectively a type of power. What we are trying to do is choke off their power to starve their political machine. Their political machine depends upon populist income redistribution. They effectively buy votes with their social programs. By containing spending we make that harder.

Anyway, as I said above, we can’t join them. We’re mutually exclusive philosophies. They believe in government control and we do not. There is no cooperation possible there. The only thing we agree on is that we generally think homosexuals and women should be given the same rights as anyone else. But beyond that it’s mostly differences.

If anyone is focusing on ONE thing to the exclusion of everything else. It’s the RR. I mean, it’s always with gays this or abortion that. Seriously… Broaden your horizons. I’m not asking you to moderate any of your positions. Seriously, keep them just as they are… but change the subject every so often.

But only if we help you. I really don’t see you giving anything.

That’s where you’re wrong. We’ve been giving you things for years. As I said early in this thread, we find many of your positions to be abhorrent and yet we still support you out of political necessity.

Do you understand that? We are already compromising quite a lot just dealing with you.

And we are prepared to give anything reasonable. We want to win because it’s the only way to protect our freedoms.

That said, we will not sell our freedoms to protect them. That’s just counter productive. So name a price that doesn’t involve us selling our freedoms and you’ve probably got a deal. :)

And when you get down to it – with a handle like “Karmashock”, you’re suspect already.

Squiggy on May 12, 2009 at 5:47 AM

What’s wrong with my handle in your opinion? Do you object to the use of the word Karma because it’s not a Christian religious concept? Or are you suspicious of the hinted retribution in the title?

If you’re curious, the title has personal significance. People that have done bad things to me have had a habit of coming to bad ends. I’ve done nothing to them it’s just that misfortune catches up with them. For example, one is in a mental institution and another is in jail for the next 20 years or so. Both were bad people and were destined to come to a bad end in any case. But that’s what the term means. Even people that have done small ills to me seem to come upon small misfortunes almost immediately.

I just noticed the pattern and thought it would be a nifty name for an Internet handle. :)

Karmashock on May 12, 2009 at 7:31 AM

This is either ignorant or a lie. I’m leaning towards simple ignorance but I can’t be sure with you. The republicans worked very hard to roll back the new deal and contain Roosevelt. We just failed. There’s a huge difference between not trying and not succeeding. Roosevelt was incredibly powerful.

what BS. Hoover was a big-gov sorta guy..just like BUSH…get a clue Nixon said ‘WE ARE ALL KEYNSIANS NOW’ He imposed wage and price controls…duhhhhh

Ford said ‘Poland is not under the dominion of the soviet union’ duhhhhhh

I remember both of those clowns saying these things…

why don’t you post some examples??? hmmmmm?? you cannot…God you are the dumbest post I’ve ever seen on this blog…you must be in a great deal of pain, such stupidity has to hurt…

there WAS NO CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT BEFORE BUCKLEY…get a clue…and the republicans were NOT conservative…and many of them still are NOT…and they, as you demonstrate..(duhh) resent and hate true conservatives…

amazing stupidity…

right4life on May 12, 2009 at 9:15 AM

what BS. Hoover was a big-gov sorta guy..

No he wasn’t. His willingness to let the banks fail is what made things easy for Roosevelt.
So it’s confirmed. Your issue is ignorance.

just like BUSH…get a clue Nixon said ‘WE ARE ALL KEYNSIANS NOW’ He imposed wage and price controls…duhhhhh

Ironic since it was Nixon that brought you into our coalition.

Anyway, he’s not representative… and we were a coalition party even then.

Ford said ‘Poland is not under the dominion of the soviet union’ duhhhhhh

Ford said many stupid things. He was well known for that in fact.

there WAS NO CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT BEFORE BUCKLEY

Depends on what that means to you. If it means your religious movement, then you may be right. But we are more then that and always have been.

So your statement doesn’t really say much.

they, as you demonstrate..(duhh) resent and hate true conservatives…

Not really. Just the stupid ones. But that’s more to do with stupidity then your politics. We have been and continue to be allies of your faction.

Your distaste for that reality is irrelevant. It is the fact. Your wish to leave is irrelevant. Your faction does not as yet agree. Your opinion of my faction is irrelevant. Your faction as yet does not agree.

I don’t care what you think. You’re an outlier… an ideological orphan… friendless, hopeless, and clueless.

I wish you enlightenment and peace.

amazing stupidity…

right4life on May 12, 2009 at 9:15 AM

You remain a bad example of Christianity. You are small minded, rude, deceitful, and hateful.

Were you a true follower of Christ and not just some angry internet troll you’d conduct yourself with more grace.

I know, you’re going to suggest I’m the devil for reminding you that you’re acting in a way Jesus wouldn’t approve. How consistently idiotic.

I wish you no harm. I only wish you’d have so much as the shadow of your patron’s wisdom. As it is, you sound like a frightened child throwing stones into the darkness. Hopeless… clueless. That is not an insult, sir. It is a lament.

Karmashock on May 12, 2009 at 10:13 AM

You don’t want control so much as you want your religion to have influence on the government. Well, they’ll probably give that to you if in return it increases their power.

I do? I never said anything like that. If you don’t want to be called a leftist, stop acting like one and assuming you know everything.

All I want is for you and people like you to leave us alone. Christians are NOT your enemy. If you think we are, then you have some serious personal issues. If you think abortion on demand and gay marriage are true American values, then you need to grow up.

From your other statements, I’m getting to the opinion you’re a leftist plant. Pretending to be one of us, while sowing discord and dissension. The old “divide and conquer” thing. That may work on some websites, but the average IQ here is too high for you to pull it off.

And just because you ignored what I said earlier, I’ll repeat this:

We had a social-liberal repub running for pres and we got our butts handed to us. Yes, he was pro-life (so is two-thirds of America – deal with it), but nowhere else was he truly conservative. Do you see where going with people like you got us? Absolutely nowhere. And now you want even more of it.

No thanks. I’d rather be the “party of no”. Even better – the party of “HELL NO”!

Squiggy on May 12, 2009 at 6:44 PM

I do? I never said anything like that. If you don’t want to be called a leftist, stop acting like one and assuming you know everything.

That statement can be reversed on you pretty quickly unless you want to retract that statement about me being part of the democrats or whatever.

Stop name calling and you won’t get name called. It’s counter productive and stupid.

All I want is for you and people like you to leave us alone.

It is my political philosophy that everyone be left alone.

So that won’t be a problem. Do you intend to use the government’s power to impose your religion or politics on people? Yes or no?

Christians are NOT your enemy.

I don’t perceive them as my enemy and I certainly don’t want them as an enemy. You will note I was arguing with Right4Life that has made of point of calling me and other things servants of the “devil” among other things.

I won’t put you in the same company, but do take heed of what I and others have been defending ourselves against.

If you think abortion on demand and gay marriage are true American values, then you need to grow up.

I don’t think I’ve advocated either position. I have suggested compromises that I think serve everyone’s interest.

In regards to abortion, banning late term abortion is an easy point to defend. We can firm up that legislation a bit but pushing much beyond that probably isn’t politically possible. Don’t get upset with me. I’m not making it hard. It’s hard without me. I’m just trying to clue you into the fact that it’s a fairly hopeless struggle beyond a certain point and thus not a good use of our SHARED political power as members of the same party. It’s not wise to commit valuable resources to lost causes when they can do some good elsewhere. We can revisit these issues later if they become vulnerable later.

As to gay marriage, the libertarians have been pushing an alternative for awhile that i think can work for the christians as well. The basic concept is to privatize marriage. Thus the government marries NO ONE. People can privately marry where they like but those arrangements will have no legal authority. The “legal” component of marriage will be transitioned into a typical contract with no standardized terms. That is, you can make marriage mean whatever you want it to mean. In your case, I assume you’ll want traditional legal rights and privileges with your spouse. You can increase or decrease those provisions at your leisure. For example, one thing that you might really like is to make it harder to get devoices. A big problem with marriage in modern western culture is that we get devoiced almost as often as we get married. If we make the process more difficult we should reduce the numbers somewhat.

Likewise those arrangements are often very expensive. To save on lawyer fees we can also rewrite the contracts such that all rights and privileges are predetermined and not up for arbitration after the fact. Do both things at the same time and you make marriage both more secure and less painful when it ends because you’re not making lawyers rich in the process.

Isn’t that to everyone’s benefit? I’m honestly trying to give you something I think you want. Am I wrong? Are you closed to any kind of compromise even if it benefits you? One of the troubling things I’ve seen in some of these debates is that there doesn’t seem to be any way to mediate these issues. Without some cooperation and flexibility we’re not going to get anywhere. And I’m not just asking you to compromise here either. Believe me, the homosexual groups might not like this idea either. But ideas like this respect everyone’s rights while actually IMPROVING the system from the ground up.

From your other statements, I’m getting to the opinion you’re a leftist plant.

Well, I’m a libertarian that generally views socialists as mortal enemies… so try again.

Just because my politics are different from yours doesn’t mean we’re not on the same side here. If you can’t see who your allies are then you’re doomed.

the average IQ here is too high for you to pull it off.

Only if you’re right. What does it say about the IQ if you’re wrong? There’s no difference between those without intelligence and those that simply refuse to use it. Think.

We had a social-liberal repub running for pres and we got our butts handed to us. Yes, he was pro-life (so is two-thirds of America – deal with it), but nowhere else was he truly conservative. Do you see where going with people like you got us? Absolutely nowhere. And now you want even more of it.
Squiggy on May 12, 2009 at 6:44 PM

It’s a silly statement for a few reasons. First, it’s overly simplistic to say that just because McCain is a moderate that he’s representative of all other values. you’re making the classic mistake of thinking of all politics as a linear scale from A to B.

There are multiple dimensions to these issues. I didn’t vote for McCain myself. I actually voted for Ron Paul if you’re interested. He lost of course.

But do you know who also lost? Huckabee. Do you think Huckabee would have won? I don’t even know if you supported the man, but his chances were ZERO in a national election. True, Ron Paul’s prospects weren’t much better but what can you do. And I’ll point out before you attack me for my vote, that Ron Paul is hardly perfect in my eyes either. He was just the closest fit and best way for me to express my political opinions. I think government has gotten too big and I want it to shrink back and respect the constitution more.

Those are my politics. I’m not a plant… I’m your ally… and I’m irritated that you’re mistreating me. We are a coalition and NEITHER of us can win without supporting each other.

Karmashock on May 12, 2009 at 11:17 PM

In your case, I assume you’ll want traditional legal rights and privileges with your spouse. You can increase or decrease those provisions at your leisure.

You absolutely don’t get it. Marriage is marriage. It is what it is, and what you want isn’t. Black isn’t white no matter how loudly you scream it.

First, it’s overly simplistic to say that just because McCain is a moderate that he’s representative of all other values.

I didn’t say that. I said “because McCain is a moderate is the reason we got our asses kicked in the last election.” You are going on the assumption that a majority of Americans agree with you – they don’t. The majority of Americans aren’t moderate with their morality.

True conservatism won everywhere it was on the ballot. Even on the Left Coast people voted for conservative values. I’ll agree, those resolutions may not stand (the people out there wanted judicial activism, and they got it.) Shame I can’t just laugh at their naivete. Nor can I laugh at yours.

You’re arguing that Meghan McCain is good for our party – I’m arguing she (and her ilk) will kill our party. Exactly where are we supposed to compromise?

Squiggy on May 13, 2009 at 6:10 AM

You absolutely don’t get it. Marriage is marriage. It is what it is, and what you want isn’t. Black isn’t white no matter how loudly you scream it.

No, you miss the point. I agree marriage is marriage. However, it is not the sanction of the state that makes it marriage.

Listen to your own words. Imagine for a moment if you were in a different culture where marriage was something different from what you think of it being. Yet you and a spouse were still married in YOUR sense of the word. The state there might conceive of it differently but what does that matter? To you and your spouse it is the same.

My point is very simply that marriage is already principally a private matter. Do you rely upon legal compulsion to keep your wife to your side? No loving partner does that. Thus you rely upon the private bonds to hold you together. That is where marriage starts, where it is in the middle, and where it finishes.

The legal aspects of the union are but a collection of legal contracts with the state communicating shared resources and legal rights over each other’s existence. Such contracts can be worked out separately or in different order without changing anything materially.

Your aversion to the issue doesn’t make any sense. And I suspect that you’re not actually thinking about it. Perhaps I’m wrong… But from where I’m sitting it seems like you just post to shout at people. That contributes nothing to the discourse but numbness. The great Christian thinkers of the past would engage me with philosophy and wit. They were the best of their age and are still revered to this day for that reason. Do not mistake your religion as an excuse to obstinate.

I didn’t say that. I said “because McCain is a moderate is the reason we got our asses kicked in the last election.” You are going on the assumption that a majority of Americans agree with you – they don’t. The majority of Americans aren’t moderate with their morality.

First, that’s not true. The republicans were pretty much doomed to begin with. The Bush presidency had weakened us too much to expect to hold on to the white house.

Second, I don’t understand who you think should have been selected? I’m guessing you think Huckabee would have won? That wouldn’t have happened. Accept your defeats gracefully so that you can rise again more quickly. If you spend yourself bare on futile issues you’ll just damn yourself at the first failure.

True conservatism won everywhere it was on the ballot. Even on the Left Coast people voted for conservative values. I’ll agree, those resolutions may not stand (the people out there wanted judicial activism, and they got it.) Shame I can’t just laugh at their naivete. Nor can I laugh at yours.

I live in california. I don’t know if you know the region well enough to understand the dynamic. Yes the gay marriage ban was passed again, but so were a lot of other things. We win more fiscal battles out here then you win “moral” ones. You are pointing at one instance and trying to spin it into something it is not.

Everything is more complex then you give it credit for… I’m sorry if that sounds dismissive and arrogant to you. That is not my intention. However, so many of your descriptions come off like a child’s drawing of the world. That is not an insult but an invitation to see more.

We can win together, but not if we go forward with eyes closed.

You’re arguing that Meghan McCain is good for our party – I’m arguing she (and her ilk) will kill our party. Exactly where are we supposed to compromise?

Squiggy on May 13, 2009 at 6:10 AM

No I’m not. I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that all you’re interested in doing is throwing out sad little insults devoid of meaning or wit.

The McCains have demonstrated themselves repeatedly to be duplicitous. Their mistake is in reaching to the left to find allies. My suggestion to YOU is to secure your CURRENT allies lest you lose them and with it the party. Despite your delusions of god given invincibility you are bound by real limitations just like everyone else. Happily you are not representative of most of the RR. If you were, you’d be impossible allies.

If anyone needs to grow up, sir… it is you. Your childish inability to grasp the wider issues makes you impractical and unsustainable.

You allies are prepared to help you gain all your objectives to the extent that it is possible and ethical. However, you seem to get power drunk on even the smell of power. If you cannot reform you will never lead… or never lead for long in any case.

Karmashock on May 13, 2009 at 6:35 AM

We win more fiscal battles out here then you win “moral” ones. You are pointing at one instance and trying to spin it into something it is not.

You don’t listen do you? I said

True conservatism won everywhere it was on the ballot.

“Fiscal battles” are conservative. Duh.

However, you seem to get power drunk on even the smell of power.

Wow. Your imagination is in full gear, isn’t it? I say one small thing and you see volumes. You take volumes to say very little.

Your childish inability to grasp the wider issues makes you impractical and unsustainable.

Unsustainable? You’re still in college aren’t you? That’s where libs get all the latest buzzwords. Please go back to your real friends and tell them how you showed up those conservatives, how you proved your superior intellect. They’ll believe you.

Meh.

Squiggy on May 13, 2009 at 8:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5