The sadly obligatory “Meghan McCain calls Joe the Plumber a dumbass” post

posted at 8:08 pm on July 16, 2009 by Allahpundit

When news is slow, as it is tonight, it’s either MeggieMac or an atheism post. Consider yourselves lucky.

Worth noting that Elisabeth Hasselbeck said virtually the same thing about JTP two months ago, although I grant you that it’s bigger news when the daughter of the guy who made Joe famous drops the bomb on him. Even so, isn’t she right? Just this one time?

Yet even as the balance begins to shift, the old guard is still yapping in the foreground. Shortly before McCain sat for this interview, Samuel Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, gave an interview to Christianity Today in which he complained about “queers” and declared, “I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children.” Unprompted, McCain rails against the man her father’s presidential campaign touted as an American everyman and made a showpiece in the weeks before the election. “Joe the Plumber — you can quote me — is a dumbass. He should stick to plumbing.”

If you missed his full interview with Christianity Today in May, you’ll find it here. Seriously: Gay adoption is practically mainstream these days and presumably welcome by conservatives as an alternative to abortion — and yet JTP thinks gays are uniformly unfit to be around children? That’s not dumbass? Since anything MMc says is deemed RINO until proven otherwise, let’s approach the question from a different angle: Do you think Sarahcuda, goddess of True Conservatism, is closer to the McCain or Wurzelbacher position on this one? I’d guess the former. Tell me why I’m wrong.

Exit question I’m going to regret: Er, why exactly do so many of you guys seem to loathe Meggie Mac, who’s pro-life, pro-gun, Christian, and hawkish, while you tolerate an atheist who’s squishy on abortion like me? Is it because she spends most of her time bashing the GOP on gay marriage instead of rubbing The One’s face in crap? I’m puzzled.


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 6 7

Dark-Star on July 16, 2009 at 11:19 PM

You miss the point completely. Conservatives vote largely on values – that’s the whole meaning of conservatism.

Liberals vote on twisted values.

But most people vote their own narrow self-interest: how is this going to affect my life? And gay adoption, in their view doesn’t affect their lives.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:23 PM

The more you rant about that issue on the electoral stage, the more they think you’re a fascist evangelical.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:15 PM

We’re not ranting. Allah asked the question, we answered.

Though for the record I don’t really care what the brainwashed kiddies and squishy “moderates” think about conservatives. I don’t go to them to ask what my beliefs should be. I’m willing to be libertarian about some social con issues, but that doesn’t mean I change my underlying beliefs. Children should not be adopted out to homosexuals or single people. What we need is to make it easier for heterosexual couples to adopt here rather than going to China or Russia.

evergreen on July 16, 2009 at 11:24 PM

The boxed wine? Well, you’re half right. It’s Target brand, which is actually good, better than several bottles I’ve had.

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:18 PM

OH THE AGONY

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:24 PM

Though for the record I don’t really care what the brainwashed kiddies and squishy “moderates” think about conservatives

So keep ranting. And keep losing elections. That’s working out real well for us these days.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:25 PM

All this passionate debate about gay adoption seems over the top to most of those voters. People vote largely on their own self-interest. Most people simply do not give a rat’s ass about gay adoption because (1) they aren’t gay (2) they aren’t being adopted.

The more you rant about that issue on the electoral stage, the more they think you’re a fascist evangelical.
Agree 10,000,000,000%!!! Only problem is most conservatives probably don’t give it much thought but if pushed to have an opinion, that opinion is more likely to be they don’t support gay marriage or adoption. But they aren’t the ones making the issue of it – the media is. The media knows this is a position conservatives take, so they are always right there to ask the oh, so important question…as if this is the most important thing for conservatives, right after abortion. This is how it becomes an “issue” in the mainstream. Name one prominent conservative out there actively campaigning against gay adoption. You can probably find several campaigning against gay marriage. but as I so eloquently pointed out earlier…that is a losing issue that even the dems won’t touch. And opposing gay marriage is only an issue when a repub does it. Repubs can’t control the media like dems can.
RR

ramrants on July 16, 2009 at 11:25 PM

Yes AP, you finally get it. She spends all her time bashing middle America and the values we embrace. And those people that are in the limelight that also endorse those views. Mostly because she wants to fit in to that New Yawk, Washington DC, Hollywood crowd that won’t give her the time of day anyway.

If Mega-Mac would endorse some of those views she would be loved by this crowd as much as Palin.

We are looking for spokesmen, and Mega-Mac ain’t it!!!!

conservnut on July 16, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Either it matters or it doesn’t, in your opinion. Which is it?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:22 PM

I’ve consistently been arguing that children should only knowingly be adopted into natural, healthy environments. And I should point out that it was MC that brought up Scientology, not me. If he wants to argue that it’s not an appropriate environment to adopt children into, that’s his prerogative.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:27 PM

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Translation: “Conservatives, stop being conservative!”

2Brave2Bscared on July 16, 2009 at 11:28 PM

ramrants on July 16, 2009 at 11:25 PM

Republican politicians fall right into that trap…they think by standing four-square on issues like gay marriage, they energize their base. Maybe they do, but they alienate a hell of a lot of moderate voters in the process.

Maybe when they’re asked questions like that, they should respond, “You know, I’m for small Federal government and state’s rights. I’m content to leave that issue to the states.”

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:28 PM

If they go to a sperm bank, they do.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:12 PM

No, I said they should do it that natural way.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:29 PM

No, I said they should do it that natural way

Then it’s not of our business.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:29 PM

Translation: “Conservatives, stop being conservative!”

2Brave2Bscared on July 16, 2009 at 11:28 PM

I thought simplistic argumentation was the province of the Left.

You have completely ignored what I said: pursue cultural issues through cultural channels. Campaign on small government, low taxes, strong national defense, secure borders and less intrusion into people’s lives.

If that’s giving up, I’ll eat my freaking hat.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:30 PM

Meghan McCain – Her only qualification is that her Mother did NOT have an abortion.

Now somebody tie a box of twinkies to the back of a greyhound buss and slap her fat a$$ as it drives by and yell “GIDDY UP!!”

BillaryMcBush on July 16, 2009 at 11:31 PM

…it was a representation of what you seem to be arguing, not my own argument.

I hope it was unintentional, because if you’re trying to score points by misrepresenting a quote from me out of context, you’ve already lost.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:22 PM

It was. Your framing was rather confusing.

Again, children being brought up in the cult of Scientology is unnatural. However, Scientology members aren’t barred from adopting children into that unnatural environment, even though there is a far more evident risk involved in doing so, due to the vast amount of reports of physical and mental abuse wreaked upon the members of that church.

Yet, you argue that the mere sexual preference of the parents is reason enough to bar them from adopting? Would that also apply to parents into BDSM? What if they’re into orgies? Swinging?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:32 PM

OH THE AGONY

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:24 PM

No, you really should try it. I hate buying a bottle, not finishing it and then having to finish one drink later, so I’ve tried a few boxed wines, even some expensive ones. But those are actually good.

You trust me, don’t you?

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Allah if you can’t understand why conservatives LOATHE Meghan McCain why are you even blogging?

Isn’t it your full time job to be educated on this stuff? I work 60 hours a week and drop by hotair for headlines that aren’t condescending towards conservative views and actually sound INFORMED. I don’t come here to read something that sounds like it’s from the Huffington Post.

I spend 1% as much time as you in the blog world and I clearly understand why conservatives loathe MM. What is wrong with you?

You know, everyone can see that your trying to look clever, or profound with your condescending “I’m going to regret this” and “I’m puzzled” statements.

SHE CALLED JOE THE PLUBMER A DUMBASS – AND YOUR PUZZLED WHY WE HATE HER?

SHE CONSTANTLY BASHES ON RUSH LIMBAUGH AND PLAYS RIGHT ALONG WITH THE MEDIA CONJURED STORYLINE OF MARGINALIZING THE RIGHT WING THROUGH THIS CONSTANT REGURGITATION OF ONE SIDED LIMBAUGH COMMENTARY.

I really could go on and on and on, but I don’t need to.

So what – your wishy washy on abortion… Keep bringing that up if you want Hotair readership to go down the toilet.

You know why so many hotair readers are fed up with you? Not it’s not because you disagree on some traditional conservative points…it’s because you come across sounding extremely condescending to your own readers, and the act is realllly getting old.

CapitalistObserver on July 16, 2009 at 11:33 PM

How the hell did this thread devolve into arguments about Scientology. Just askin’.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:33 PM

No, I said they should do it that natural way.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:29 PM

So sperm banks go against the natural order?

I guess one in seven couples are unnatural.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:35 PM

The way this thread has gone is a perfect example of why cultural conservatives make youth and moderates nervous.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Unless they don’t care about the wellbeing of children, (which I doubt), it’s likely that their opinions have been shaped by the left wing culture they’ve watched on TV and simply don’t know any better.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:36 PM

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:30 PM

That wasn’t an argument; it was a summation of want you essentially said.

Liberals like yourself are always telling conservatives that they have to stop this or that in order to win elections. We’re suppose to compromise while you remain pure.

2Brave2Bscared on July 16, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Republican politicians fall right into that trap…they think by standing four-square on issues like gay marriage, they energize their base. Maybe they do, but they alienate a hell of a lot of moderate voters in the process.

Maybe when they’re asked questions like that, they should respond, “You know, I’m for small Federal government and state’s rights. I’m content to leave that issue to the states.”

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:28 PM
I agree. But you don’t understand…Republicans just can’t help themselves. They just screw it up, no matter what it is…and that makes them an easy target for the media…even when they are given a gift. Look at Mark Sanford for example. God killed Michael Jackson to get Sanford off the front page. Did he take the gift? Why no he did not.

It’s in the blood, man. It’s in the blood.
RR

ramrants on July 16, 2009 at 11:36 PM

I’ve consistently been arguing that children should only knowingly be adopted into natural, healthy environments. And I should point out that it was MC that brought up Scientology, not me. If he wants to argue that it’s not an appropriate environment to adopt children into, that’s his prerogative.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:27 PM

Here’s the thing, we’re not talking about children who have the option of either a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. Generally, gays are the last to be able to adopt and are only adopting kids who otherwise would be left to be cared for by the state.

Then is your argument that gays are worse than orphanages?

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:37 PM

How the hell did this thread devolve into arguments about Scientology. Just askin’.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:33 PM

Because Blatantblue isn’t here to help us devolve into inuendo;)

Laura in Maryland on July 16, 2009 at 11:37 PM

ok- my quote button is not working. It’s broken. MINES BROKEN!
RR

ramrants on July 16, 2009 at 11:37 PM

Unless they don’t care about the wellbeing of children, (which I doubt), it’s likely that their opinions have been shaped by the left wing culture they’ve watched on TV and simply don’t know any better.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Oh, yeah…so let’s just write them off as dumb-asses and continue to lose elections.

They care about children – their own children. And they cannot see how someone else adopting a child has jack to do with their own children.

For that matter, neither do I.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:38 PM

Consigning a child to slavery is preferred to abortion. Where does that leave adoption by homosexuals?

Because hey, guys that do guys are by definition moral and worthy to adopt children. Far more so than the hundreds of thousands of normal couples that want to adopt.

Yeah.

spmat on July 16, 2009 at 11:38 PM

Can we recommend people be banned? cuz if so…I’d like to start with the douche…

Meghan McCain – Her only qualification is that her Mother did NOT have an abortion.

Now somebody tie a box of twinkies to the back of a greyhound buss and slap her fat a$$ as it drives by and yell “GIDDY UP!!”

BillaryMcBush on July 16, 2009 at 11:31 PM

ramrants on July 16, 2009 at 11:39 PM

That wasn’t an argument; it was a summation of want you essentially said.

Liberals like yourself are always telling conservatives that they have to stop this or that in order to win elections. We’re suppose to compromise while you remain pure.

2Brave2Bscared on July 16, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Beneath contempt.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:40 PM

No, you really should try it. I hate buying a bottle, not finishing it and then having to finish one drink later, so I’ve tried a few boxed wines, even some expensive ones. But those are actually good.

You trust me, don’t you?

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:32 PM

I wanted to. However, once you admitted to getting your liquor from The Land Which Can Not Be Named, the chain whose stores always reek, and I mean ALWAYS, a part of me died.

Although I did used to drink my share of boxed chianti. I actually gave a performance on stage wasted off the stuff in college. Now I have more of an affinity for Blackstone Merlot. My best friend used to drink Franzia religiously, but now he’s been reduced to Steel Reserve. I remember drinking Hurricane, and somehow it tasted better than SR. Ugh.

Which reminds me, I need to crack open my bottle of Powers Gold Label and see if it’s any good. Why is it so hard to get pure pot Irish Whiskey???

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:40 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Meghan is pro-life.

takeamericabackin10 on July 16, 2009 at 11:40 PM

Then why did you say this?

Healthy environment/unhealthy environment, who cares?

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:03 PM

Either it matters or it doesn’t, in your opinion. Which is it?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:22 PM

Esthier didn’t have any problem understanding the proper context of that statement when she said:

You don’t do so well trying to argue someone else’s beliefs. I think you should know that.

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:05 PM

At any rate, MC, based on your last couple of posts, it seems that we’re on the same side of the argument. Maybe it was a misunderstanding all the way around….

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:41 PM

How the hell did this thread devolve into arguments about Scientology. Just askin’.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:33 PM

It was really easy.

Because hey, guys that do guys are by definition moral and worthy to adopt children. Far more so than the hundreds of thousands of normal couples that want to adopt.

Yeah.

spmat on July 16, 2009 at 11:38 PM

I don’t understand why people think it’s an either or situation. Gay couples aren’t “doing the work heterosexual couples aren’t doing” but rather adopting kids that otherwise wouldn’t have parents.

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:41 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Meghan is pro-life.

takeamericabackin10 on July 16, 2009 at 11:40 PM

Yeah? Gee, when I went to register to vote, I don’t recall that the Republican box stated Do not check this box if you are not pro-life

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:42 PM

I’ve consistently been arguing that children should only knowingly be adopted into natural, healthy environments. And I should point out that it was MC that brought up Scientology, not me. If he wants to argue that it’s not an appropriate environment to adopt children into, that’s his prerogative.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:27 PM

Fine, so you zero in on a single environment you see as unhealthy, and refuse to recognize other provably unhealthy environments as relative to your argument. That’s your prerogative, but it also cripples your argument.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:42 PM

Beneath contempt.

Don’t like it when people point out the game you’re playing, do you?

2Brave2Bscared on July 16, 2009 at 11:42 PM

Don’t like it when people point out the game you’re playing, do you?

2Brave2Bscared on July 16, 2009 at 11:42 PM

No. I just revere my grandma. And she always told me not to argue with idiots.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:43 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Meghan is pro-life.

takeamericabackin10 on July 16, 2009 at 11:40 PM

Yeah? Gee, when I went to register to vote, I don’t recall that the Republican box stated Do not check this box if you are not pro-life

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:42 PM

The party doesn’t decide if you belong, the person decides if they want to join. I think we need to get away from this argument of, “this person can belong, but not that person”.

FYI- my quote button works now. I know you guys were worried.
RR

ramrants on July 16, 2009 at 11:44 PM

No. I just revere my grandma. And she always told me not to argue with idiots.

Uh-huh.

2Brave2Bscared on July 16, 2009 at 11:44 PM

Once again, Big Mac makes an idiotic point that has nothing to do with either conservatism or the now. She’s stuck on stupid c. 2008.

alliebobbitt on July 16, 2009 at 11:44 PM

At any rate, MC, based on your last couple of posts, it seems that we’re on the same side of the argument. Maybe it was a misunderstanding all the way around….

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:41 PM

I’ll reiterate to clear it up. Even though I see other environments as unhealthy, the criteria upon which I arrive at that opinion is not, again in my opinion, sufficient to deny parenthood to people who may be fantastic parents. Therefore, I see homosexuality as even less of a valid criterion upon which to deny adoption.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:44 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Meghan is pro-life.

takeamericabackin10 on July 16, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Yeah? Gee, when I went to register to vote, I don’t recall that the Republican box stated Do not check this box if you are not pro-life

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:42 PM

Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear, but I was responding to Allah’s exit question.

takeamericabackin10 on July 16, 2009 at 11:45 PM

Again, children being brought up in the cult of Scientology is unnatural.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:32 PM

I simply don’t agree. You may be right that it’s unhealthy, but it’s not unnatural. Two men having a baby is unnatural. A man and a women having a baby, even if they belong to a nutty religion or cult, is natural. I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s probably been happening for thousands of years.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM

Blackstone Merlot.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:40 PM

That’s a good one. I also like Ruffino Chianti, and most Yellow Tail bottles.

This one is a cab, chianti mix.

Why is it so hard to get pure pot Irish Whiskey???

Racists in this country holding you down!

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM

Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear, but I was responding to Allah’s exit question.

takeamericabackin10 on July 16, 2009 at 11:45 PM

My apologies.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM

It was. Your framing was rather confusing.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Good, I’ll take from that that it was a misunderstanding. That’s what I figured.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:47 PM

You have completely ignored what I said: pursue cultural issues through cultural channels. Campaign on small government, low taxes, strong national defense, secure borders and less intrusion into people’s lives.

If that’s giving up, I’ll eat my freaking hat.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:30 PM

You got it completely wrong. We aren’t pursuing any cultural issues, they are. We are playing pure defense. You want us to sit on our hands while gay marriage is advanced? You would allow liberals to voice their opinion on how society should be changed while gagging us?

DFCtomm on July 16, 2009 at 11:47 PM

Here’s the thing, we’re not talking about children who have the option of either a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. Generally, gays are the last to be able to adopt and are only adopting kids who otherwise would be left to be cared for by the state.

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:37 PM

Precisely, although I believe that many gay couples would be better parents than some straight couples. A former close friend of mine is currently on welfare, living in a trailer with his wife, three kids, her sister and her two kids, and his sister, along with several animals. I’d sooner trust one of my children with a gay couple than them.

Oh, and he votes Republican. Figure that out.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:48 PM

I simply don’t agree. You may be right that it’s unhealthy, but it’s not unnatural. Two men having a baby is unnatural. A man and a women having a baby, even if they belong to a nutty religion or cult, is natural. I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s probably been happening for thousands of years.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM

Seems like a semantics argument. Cannibalism is also natural, but that doesn’t mean it’s better than homosexuality.

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:49 PM

due to the vast amount of reports of physical and mental abuse wreaked upon the members of that church.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:32 PM

I have to admit, you make a very strong case that Scientologist’s shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children unless the biological parents willed it.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:49 PM

I simply don’t agree. You may be right that it’s unhealthy, but it’s not unnatural. Two men having a baby is unnatural. A man and a women having a baby, even if they belong to a nutty religion or cult, is natural. I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s probably been happening for thousands of years.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM

Again, if we’re discussing the welfare of children, unnatural is irrelevant and unhealthy is relevant, unless unnatural and unhealthy are synonymous.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:50 PM

You got it completely wrong. We aren’t pursuing any cultural issues, they are. We are playing pure defense. You want us to sit on our hands while gay marriage is advanced? You would allow liberals to voice their opinion on how society should be changed while gagging us?

Yep; that’s his game, as I pointed out earlier. Liberals set the moral agenda, while conservatives are told to either 1) shut up, or 2) play along. If we refuse, they go on to tell us how we’ll never win elections so we might as well give up.

It’s the Liberal Strategy to Success 101.

2Brave2Bscared on July 16, 2009 at 11:51 PM

Why is it so hard to get pure pot Irish Whiskey???

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:40 PM

Because high quality bourbon and, obviously inferior but still acceptable, TN whiskey is cheap and plentiful.

DFCtomm on July 16, 2009 at 11:51 PM

I have to admit, you make a very strong case that Scientologist’s shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children unless the biological parents willed it.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:49 PM

I strongly, strongly urge you to do some homework. These people are a much smaller force, but their prowess at manipulating the law to silence criticism is as frightening as anything CAIR does, if not more so.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:52 PM

It’s getting to be way too late, already, but could you at least answer why. MegaMac, the pig, calls someone a dumbass. Oh that’s news. The military blinks and revokes deployment orders so that The Precedent doesn’t have to prove himself in court. No news. That is pathetic.

progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 8:28 PM

Yup. People Magazine. Talk about dumbing down America. Look in the mirror, Allah.

atheling on July 16, 2009 at 11:53 PM

Oh, and he votes Republican. Figure that out.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:48 PM

Weird. The way I see it, a child is better off with a mother and father, assuming both are… competent and capable of caring for children.

Two parents are better than one, and parents who have their stuff together are better than those who do not.

And any parent is better than the government, something I’d hope we all can agree on.

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:53 PM

So sperm banks go against the natural order?

I guess one in seven couples are unnatural.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:35 PM

If they’re giving it to two fertile lesbian women, then yeah. How are they not? I mean, sperm banks clash with the natural order in general, but the result is different. There’s nothing unusual or unnatural about a man and a woman having a baby.

Society certainly has a right, a duty even, to create ethical guidelines governing the practice of science.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:55 PM

That’s a good one. I also like Ruffino Chianti, and most Yellow Tail bottles.

This one is a cab, chianti mix.

I’ll give Yellow Tail a try. The bottles always catch my eye. Thanks!

Racists in this country holding you down!

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM

Damn straight. The stereotypes about us Irishmen being drunks are hurtful and damaging, and everyone at the Irish Cultural Center agrees, even after closing time.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Oh, and he votes Republican. Figure that out.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:48 PM

It’s probably due to family loyalty. I come from a die hard democrat family on my mother’s side, and while they support none of the democratic national issues they still vote big D every Nov.

DFCtomm on July 16, 2009 at 11:57 PM

Society certainly has a right, a duty even, to create ethical guidelines governing the practice of science.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:55 PM

You’re not talking about science. You’re talking about whether or not orphans should be able to be adopted by homosexuals.

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:57 PM

Weird. The way I see it, a child is better off with a mother and father, assuming both are… competent and capable of caring for children.

Two parents are better than one, and parents who have their stuff together are better than those who do not.

My former friend and his whale of a breeding machine, do not have their stuff together.

And any parent is better than the government, something I’d hope we all can agree on.

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:53 PM

Well…Michael Jackson. Otherwise, yeah.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:57 PM

Meghan McCain calls Joe the Plumber a “dumbass”

Joe chose his words wrong & Meghan should have expressed herself in a diplomatic manner in regards to Joe remarks instead of how she did to that leftwing reporter. Meghan was trying to be hip & cool again but it is obvious to us here that she is just too young and naive to foresee the ensuing thrall of backlash from the people in the party whose label she likes to identify herself with. The disaster of this whole thing is that you chose to post it here at Hot Air AP. Both Joe and Meghan are a disappointment to the republican brand but Allah, you should try and limit your Meghan McCain posts. You knew that she was going to get scrambled like this before you posted it on this thread. If this is your way to direct your disappointment at her indirectly through the commenters here at Hot Air, then I would say you succeeded. Does Meghan have the brain power to realize that there was an ulterior motive of you posting it here? Probably not because she doesn’t demonstrate the common sense to distinguish between trying to be hip & cool versus refined & elegant. Trying to be hip & cool is at best a passing fad but behaving & speaking in an elegant and refined manner are endearing and durable qualities. For Meghan to be respected by others in all circumstance should not depend on whether the people are considered to be below, equal or better than what she thinks she is intellectually. It will be when she starts to intercourse with others respectively in a refined, professional and elegant manner. When she attains this basic self-actualization of grace & humility, all those desires she has for celebrity/popularity will soar and that respect that she so desperately craves will arrive for Meghan McCain.

Americannodash on July 16, 2009 at 11:58 PM

It’s probably due to family loyalty. I come from a die hard democrat family on my mother’s side, and while they support none of the democratic national issues they still vote big D every Nov.

DFCtomm on July 16, 2009 at 11:57 PM

A good portion of my family on my father’s side is like that. Makes me want to ram my head into a wall out of frustration.

2Brave2Bscared on July 16, 2009 at 11:59 PM

Because high quality bourbon and, obviously inferior but still acceptable, TN whiskey is cheap and plentiful.

DFCtomm on July 16, 2009 at 11:51 PM

We need a peat bailout.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:59 PM

The fat comments about Meghan are childish and uncalled for. How can you guys criticize the disgusting comments about Palin and then make fat jokes about Meghan. Please explain how you reconcile these inconsistencies.

ramrants on July 16, 2009 at 10:47 PM

So, she can make comments about JTP’s personal attributes but hers are of limits? Personally, I do not like going there but every time I see something said or written by her it is slamming someone on our side of the aisle and it is often personal. And while I do not agree with JTP on this issue, he has at least earned his way in the world. MM’s only qualification is her last name and I get sick of being lectured on what we Repubs/conservatives should do by someone younger than some of the things in my colon.

The Opinionator on July 17, 2009 at 12:00 AM

A good portion of my family on my father’s side is like that. Makes me want to ram my head into a wall out of frustration.

2Brave2Bscared on July 16, 2009 at 11:59 PM

My Grandfather, rest his soul, was an old school Reagan democrat, but the rest of them can’t seem to grasp what he understood. I like to think that if he were still with us he would have abandoned the democrats.

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:01 AM

Then is your argument that gays are worse than orphanages?

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:37 PM

We’d have to experiment with children to find out. Orphanages have been around for centuries, at least, they’re a known quantaty and a natural solution to an old problem. Gay couples adopting children is an entirely new phenomenon. (Though Rome may be an exception.)

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:02 AM

If they’re giving it to two fertile lesbian women, then yeah. How are they not? I mean, sperm banks clash with the natural order in general, but the result is different. There’s nothing unusual or unnatural about a man and a woman having a baby.

You’re making an argument that is entirely anti-scientific. Disease occurs naturally. Should we not search for a cure because it goes against the natural order? Deformity occurs naturally. Should technology not be researched that allows the deformed to live a relatively normal life?

Society certainly has a right, a duty even, to create ethical guidelines governing the practice of science.

FloatingRock on July 16, 2009 at 11:55 PM

Then how do you determine the effects of same-sex parenting on children if you refuse to allow it?

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:03 AM

I’ll give Yellow Tail a try. The bottles always catch my eye. Thanks!

Anytime. They’re always a good price.

The stereotypes about us Irishmen being drunks are hurtful and damaging, and everyone at the Irish Cultural Center agrees, even after closing time.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Of course it’s hard to tell if men stretched out on the floor are really agreeing or just want the nearest trash can.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:04 AM

Orphanages have been around for centuries, at least, they’re a known quantaty and a natural solution to an old problem. Gay couples adopting children is an entirely new phenomenon. (Though Rome may be an exception.)

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:02 AM

How are they natural? They’re a result of human society. If you’re arguing that human society is natural, then our resultant acceptance of gay adoption would also be natural.

Our species is 100,000-200,000 years old. Exactly how long have orphanages been around? What naturally happened to orphans before then?

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:05 AM

Oh, yeah…so let’s just write them off as dumb-asses and continue to lose elections.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:38 PM

No, I’m saying let’s resist the left wing propaganda instead of surrendering to it.

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:06 AM

So keep ranting. And keep losing elections. That’s working out real well for us these days.

guntotinglibertarian on July 16, 2009 at 11:25 PM

There’s a new wave of Conservatism sweeping the nation or haven’t you noticed?
What decided the last election wasn’t “ranting” but 52% voting for the “first black President.”
Clearly, most Obama voters were voters suffering from white guilt who thought the “nice black man” would govern as a centrist out of gratitude for being elected.
Needless to say, he won’t.
(As someone else pointed out, much of the Conservative base stayed home because McCain was too squishy a moderate!)
Ranting & stance on cultural issues have very little to do with who won in ’08.
The central issue of the campaign, as Joe the Plumber in his dumbassity pointed out, was Ogabe’s Socialism.
And this will be the issue in the elections of 2010 and 2012.
Meghan McCain shows that she got her father’s brain, which is b.b.-sized: John McCain should have capitalized on what NObama told Joe the Plumber, but he chose not to because NObama’s Socialist/Marxist tendencies are linked to his embrace of Black Liberation Theology and to point that out as horrible in a presidential candidate was raaaaacccccissstttttt.
The only person who had no trouble doing was this was…Sarah Palin!
And she continues to do so.
God bless her!

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Of course it’s hard to tell if men stretched out on the floor are really agreeing or just want the nearest trash can.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:04 AM

It’s amazing how you can derive cultural pride and sensitivity from pissed renditions of “My Bonnie”.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:06 AM

My former friend and his whale of a breeding machine, do not have their stuff together.

And there’s really no reason they should be given children just because they’re using their gentiles the way procreation was meant to be (of course that’s still an assumption on my part).

Well…Michael Jackson. Otherwise, yeah.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:57 PM

OK, but living.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:07 AM

We need a peat bailout.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:59 PM

I’m not that familiar with the whiskey from across the pond, but what I have tasted wasn’t that impressive. I’m from Kentucky though and have access to the smaller local distilleries that don’t have a national market.

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:07 AM

I’m not that familiar with the whiskey from across the pond, but what I have tasted wasn’t that impressive. I’m from Kentucky though and have access to the smaller local distilleries that don’t have a national market.

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:07 AM

That’s because 90% of the pure pot Irish whiskey made in the world is produced only at local distilleries in Ireland. I’ve been trying to get my hands on some Green Spot for a long time now, with no luck. Almost everything sold over here is a blend that is largely indistinguishable from your average bourbons.

And it’s a travesty that one of them bears the name of Michael Collins.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:10 AM

Then how do you determine the effects of same-sex parenting on children if you refuse to allow it?

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:03 AM

That’s the rub isn’t it. Do you really want to conduct social experiments with children just to see how it will turn out?

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:10 AM

Gay adoption is practically mainstream these days and presumably welcome by conservatives as an alternative to abortion — and yet JTP thinks gays are uniformly unfit to be around children?

It’s unlikely that gay adoption genuinely prevents any abortions so much as it keeps more children out of foster care. So it’s a little weird that gay adoption is so much more accepted than gay marriage.

RightOFLeft on July 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM

OK, but living.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:07 AM

John McCain. Look how the last one turned out.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM

We’d have to experiment with children to find out. Orphanages have been around for centuries, at least, they’re a known quantaty and a natural solution to an old problem. Gay couples adopting children is an entirely new phenomenon. (Though Rome may be an exception.)

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:02 AM

Gays have been around for just as long as orphanages. And it’s not as though plenty don’t raise their own half biological children (or however they mix the DNA).

And it’s not as though all gays are the same. They’re not like monkeys you can study at the zoo.

It’s amazing how you can derive cultural pride and sensitivity from pissed renditions of “My Bonnie”.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:06 AM

It’s a family trait. My mother’s a Kennedy, just not the bad kind.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:12 AM

That’s because 90% of the pure pot Irish whiskey made in the world is produced only at local distilleries in Ireland. I’ve been trying to get my hands on some Green Spot for a long time now, with no luck. Almost everything sold over here is a blend that is largely indistinguishable from your average bourbons.

And it’s a travesty that one of them bears the name of Michael Collins.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:10 AM

What exactly does “pure pot” mean? Is that like single barrel?

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:12 AM

Neither of them are bright. However, Joe did what Couric, Gibson, and Williams couldn’t do,and thats get Obama to admit what he really wants. And Meg was schooled by Begala on Real Time.

V15J on July 17, 2009 at 12:13 AM

That’s the rub isn’t it. Do you really want to conduct social experiments with children just to see how it will turn out?

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:10 AM

Given that we already overlook more damaging characteristics of parents, inevitably placing children in harm’s way, I don’t see the big risk in doing so.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Therefore, I see homosexuality as even less of a valid criterion upon which to deny adoption.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2009 at 11:44 PM

We’ll have to agree to disagree, then. I don’t think that we should knowingly place children into unnatural/unhealthy environments. I mean, what if a homeless couple wanted to adopt? Sure, they may be great parents, and in fact you could argue that it’s not unnatural for a child to be homeless, (although usually they’re the children of gypsies or Bedouin’s or something), but should we allow them to adopt anyway because we don’t want to be judgmental?

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Basically, she has not put Obama to the fire. Any article, interview, comments about how Obama is ruining the country? Don’t care about Allah’s feelings (personal) about her; just that she is showing SHE IS NOT A PATRIOT.

ProudPalinFan on July 17, 2009 at 12:16 AM

The country is being destroyed by Ogabe’s Socialism and him doing what he told Joe the Plumber he was going to do and this thread degenerates into discussion about homosexual adoption and whiskey?
Tragic.
Can you at least try to save our great republic?

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:18 AM

Given that we already overlook more damaging characteristics of parents, inevitably placing children in harm’s way, I don’t see the big risk in doing so.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Maybe we could start with fostering children that are difficult to place, and see how that goes. We are talking about children, so the length of time to make a determination would be decades.

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:18 AM

So it’s a little weird that gay adoption is so much more accepted than gay marriage.

RightOFLeft on July 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM

It’s not too weird. There are still more benefits to society that way. Getting kids out of foster care (or worse) has more of a value to society than granting some status to a gay relationship.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:18 AM

There’s a new wave of Conservatism sweeping the nation or haven’t you noticed?

No, I haven’t noticed.

1972: R 61%, D 36%
1976: R 48% D 50%
1980: R 51% D 41%
1984: R 59% D 40%
1988: R: 53% D 45%
1992: R + Perot: 57% D 43%
1996: R + Perot” 49% D 50%
2000: R 48% D 48% Nader 2%
2004: R 51% D 48%
2008: R 46% D 53%

Where’s your new wave?

By the way, Jen, you asked for a link a few hours ago and I gave it to you. Apparently you were too lazy or opinionated to even look at the numbers

So here it is again: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html

Please don’t waste my time until you do your homework.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:19 AM

Can you at least try to save our great republic?

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:18 AM

Jenfidel,

Whiskey may very well save the republic. It’s pretty amazing.

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:20 AM

Her Daddy was the wrong candidate obviously.

Travis1 on July 17, 2009 at 12:20 AM

It’s a family trait. My mother’s a Kennedy, just not the bad kind.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:12 AM

The sin of your choice of department stores is wiped clean.

What exactly does “pure pot” mean? Is that like single barrel?

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:12 AM

It refers to 100% barley whiskey, cooked over a peat fire, which gives it a flavor unique to Irish whiskey. I had it once, at an Irish hotel and bar in Galena, Illinois. Spicy bite that I haven’t tasted in any other whiskey.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:21 AM

John McCain. Look how the last one turned out.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Touche. And he even had a wife.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:21 AM

I mean, what if a homeless couple wanted to adopt? Sure, they may be great parents, and in fact you could argue that it’s not unnatural for a child to be homeless, (although usually they’re the children of gypsies or Bedouin’s or something), but should we allow them to adopt anyway because we don’t want to be judgmental?

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Unnatural really isn’t the issue. Harmful is all people should worry about.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:22 AM

No, I’m saying let’s resist the left wing propaganda instead of surrendering to it.

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Which is exactly what I am saying.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:22 AM

Maybe we could start with fostering children that are difficult to place, and see how that goes. We are talking about children, so the length of time to make a determination would be decades.

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:18 AM

Foster children are more likely to already have dysfunctional tendencies due to the high chance of being placed with multiple families. That’s a big catalyst to throw in, which would affect the results.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:22 AM

Sorry, will not read 5 pages on a MM thread but I have to ask:

Gay adoption is practically mainstream these days and presumably welcome by conservatives as an alternative to abortion

WTF????? Don’t presume AP, it’s dangerously close to assuming if you know what I mean.

Rocks on July 17, 2009 at 12:23 AM

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html

Please don’t waste my time until you do your homework.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:19 AM

Don’t waste my time with “statistics” from the NYSlimes!
And don’t waste my time with your Meghan-like whining about how Republicans need to be inclusive on “cultural issues” to “win over the youth.”

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:23 AM

You’re not talking about science. You’re talking about whether or not orphans should be able to be adopted by homosexuals.

Esthier on July 16, 2009 at 11:57 PM

“Science” in that case was referring to in vitro fertilization of lesbians. That creates an ethical issue in which society certainly has a role to play.

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:24 AM

No, I’m saying let’s resist the left wing propaganda instead of surrendering to it.

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Which is exactly what I am saying.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:22 AM

Uh, no.
You’re saying just the opposite, Mr. “liberatarian.”
In fact, you sound just like Meggie.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM

We’ll have to agree to disagree, then. I don’t think that we should knowingly place children into unnatural/unhealthy environments. I mean, what if a homeless couple wanted to adopt? Sure, they may be great parents, and in fact you could argue that it’s not unnatural for a child to be homeless, (although usually they’re the children of gypsies or Bedouin’s or something), but should we allow them to adopt anyway because we don’t want to be judgmental?

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:16 AM

That’s because we both see an evident danger in placing children with parents who can’t put a roof over their heads. We simply disagree that homosexuality poses evident danger, in the same way we disagree about the evident danger of placing children with Scientologists. Perhaps more information would change our minds on the respective topics, but I’ve met plenty of sane, sensible homosexuals. I can’t say I’ve met as many sane, sensible Scientologists or other cult members.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7