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.

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.

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?

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.

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”!

-Reagan

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.

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…

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

get a clue, and try history 101…sheesh…

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…

Here’s Alfonzo Rachel’s latest video on RINOs, abortion, and our mounting debt to China:

Why can’t I talk like that? Oh, because I’m a software engineering nerd! That’s why.
And here’s Steven Crowder’s lat…

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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”!