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 4 5 6 7

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 why I think nature is an appropriate authority. If two men were intended to have a baby, one of them would have been a woman.

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:19 AM

That’s a little unfair. Conservatism and the GOP have been parting ways for years.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:26 AM

That’s why I think nature is an appropriate authority. If two men were intended to have a baby, one of them would have been a woman.

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM

So if a man or woman is sterile, does it go against nature for them to have a child by other means? Was nature saying they shouldn’t be parents?

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:27 AM

BTW, what is up with orphanages? There hasn’t been an orphanage in the US in 40 years. There’s foster care and the vast majority of children in foster care are not eligible for adoption and never will be.

Rocks on July 17, 2009 at 12:28 AM

Don’t waste my time with “statistics” from the NYSlimes!

You really are an idiot, aren’t you? Those numbers come directly from the Secretaries of State of each of the 50 states.

But, then, your little mind is all made up, why confuse you with the facts?

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:28 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

I don’t want to deprive anyone of their rights, but I don’t want children damaged in the pursuit of a PC agenda. I’m not against allowing gays to adopt or foster on a very limited basis to see how it turns out, but it should be done slowly and methodically with minimal consideration shown to PC and maximum consideration shown the the welfare of the children.

Anyway it’s been a fun talk, but I”m off to bed. Oh, if I ever find some pure pot Irish Whiskey I will give it a try.

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:28 AM

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:21 AM

Thank you, Father.

“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

And yet you’re not talking about people like Octomom but rather gays. Society has already decided it’s OK with people have children through unnatural means, and if you posed an opposition, it was missed.

Even still, lesbi@ns can still have children the natural way if they choose.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:29 AM

I guess I have to take her word for it, having boot strapped her way up and all. I mean she is from the school of hard knocks and can speak for the everyman.

erh ah, oh wait no, I take that back, she is just a dumb fn privileged “C” and is irrelevant.

oh, I am glad I have that sorted out.

TheSitRep on July 17, 2009 at 12:29 AM

That’s a little unfair. Conservatism and the GOP have been parting ways for years.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:26 AM

What’s your point? I didn’t happen to notice any big, fat voting totals for the “conservative” party. Like it or not, conservatives mostly vote Republican. (Except for me, I vote Libertarian).

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:29 AM

That’s a little unfair. Conservatism and the GOP have been parting ways for years.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:26 AM

Your statement is also unfair.
There are quite a few of us Conservative Republicans who would beg to differ.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:30 AM

Thank you, Father.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:29 AM

WHOA.

Seriously kinky.

And arousing.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:30 AM

How are they natural? They’re a result of human society.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:05 AM

Natural in that context referred to a “logical development” or “common sense”.

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM

Your statement is also unfair.
There are quite a few of us Conservative Republicans who would beg to differ.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:30 AM

So McCain represented conservatism? How about Bush Sr. and Dole? Hell, a lot of conservatives now despise Dubya’s coined “compassionate conservatism”.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM

What’s your point? I didn’t happen to notice any big, fat voting totals for the “conservative” party. Like it or not, conservatives mostly vote Republican. (Except for me, I vote Libertarian).

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:29 AM

Sarah Palin was the only Conservative running, besides my Congressman, that I know of.
Voting Libertarian is a throwaway vote for nothing but the legalization of drugs.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM

Natural in that context referred to a “logical development” or “common sense”.

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM

Governments raising children is common sense?

Again, we disagree. It doesn’t take a village.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM

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

How can we possibly know?

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM

There hasn’t been an orphanage in the US in 40 years. There’s foster care and the vast majority of children in foster care are not eligible for adoption and never will be.

Rocks on July 17, 2009 at 12:28 AM

We may call them by different names or pretend they are foster care situations, but orphanages are orphanages.

I went to school with several who were at the Boys and Girls Harbor. They called it foster care, but you wouldn’t.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM

What’s your point? I didn’t happen to notice any big, fat voting totals for the “conservative” party. Like it or not, conservatives mostly vote Republican. (Except for me, I vote Libertarian).

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:29 AM

Conservatives have mostly been voting for the lesser of two evils since Reagan. Give conservatives a viable third option, and the GOP will choke on the outflow.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:34 AM

And arousing.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:30 AM

I need to be cleansed.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:34 AM

I don’t want to deprive anyone of their rights, but I don’t want children damaged in the pursuit of a PC agenda. I’m not against allowing gays to adopt or foster on a very limited basis to see how it turns out, but it should be done slowly and methodically with minimal consideration shown to PC and maximum consideration shown the the welfare of the children.

Anyway it’s been a fun talk, but I”m off to bed. Oh, if I ever find some pure pot Irish Whiskey I will give it a try.

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:28 AM

You should. Good night.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:34 AM

So McCain represented conservatism?

No.
But I voted for him anyway because he was certainly more Conservative than NObama.

How about Bush Sr. and Dole?

Voted for Perot in ’92, but I should have voted for Bush 41–he was a good man and a good President and a helluva lot better than Clinton.
I happily voted for Dole in ’96.

Hell, a lot of conservatives now despise Dubya’s coined “compassionate conservatism”.

I’m not one of them.
Loved GWB, voted for him twice and wish he were still President.
MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:34 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

The status being granted is designed, in part, to encourage healthy family environments. If gays can adopt at all, then gay marriage must offer a value to society by virtue of improving the adopted children’s situations.

RightOFLeft on July 17, 2009 at 12:35 AM

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

They sustained themselves by dining on liberals and drinking Irish whiskey. Night.

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:35 AM

I need to be cleansed.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:34 AM

Shall I hose you down?

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:35 AM

Well, I’m done for the evening.

Just want to say this, though: Ronald Reagan did not campaign or win on stupid issues like abortion or gay marriage. He campaigned on American exceptionalism, national defense, low taxes and small government.

It just so happened that he energized the “Moral Majority” into getting off their lazy asses and voting.

They were the tail. Reagan was the dog.

Now, they think they’re the dog.

And as long as they keep whining, “But, I’m the dog!”, they lose elections for real Reagan conservatives.

Good night, Jen. Do your freaking homework.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:36 AM

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

Since when did Cannibalism become natural? It is also a socially destructive behavioral. In any case why is everyone trying to make judgement on who should be able to adopt children. This should have nothing to do with Federal Law. And conservitives talking Scientologist’s should not be allowed to adopt. Since when do conservitives make judgments on religion choice. These adoption issues are for the States not at Federal level.

Ed Laskie on July 17, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Loved GWB, voted for him twice and wish he were still President.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:34 AM

There at least, we agree.

They sustained themselves by dining on liberals and drinking Irish whiskey. Night.

DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 12:35 AM

Comment of the month. Sir, my hat is tipped.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:36 AM

She’s like a political Britney Spears.

Her book publisher is going to get soaked on that book deal they made with her. Who’s going to buy it? In the first place most Americans don’t even know who she is, we’re not going to buy it, and to the Dems she’s just a useful idiot and they’re not going to, either.

If her agenda is to open up the Republican Party, or whatever it is, how does she plan to do it from Leftist blogs on the internet?

I’d luuuuuuv to see her show up at a Republican rally or a tea party.

Oh…that video would be priceless. :-)

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 17, 2009 at 12:37 AM

See how easy it is to start controlling peoples life?

Ed Laskie on July 17, 2009 at 12:38 AM

You really are an idiot, aren’t you?

You vote Losertarian and yet call me an idiot?
M’K.

Those numbers come directly from the Secretaries of State of each of the 50 states.

But, then, your little mind is all made up, why confuse you with the facts?

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:28 AM

My mind (which is not as little as you’d like to believe) is made up that the NYSlimes would alter numbers even coming “directly” from the Secretaries of State of all 50 states to push their agenda.
(Does Bush v. Gore, Franken v. Coleman reporting ring any bells?)

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:39 AM

How about a post dedicated to John Yoo defending his stance Wiretaps? Or how about a post dedicated to Operation Khanjar?

Cr4sh Dummy on July 17, 2009 at 12:42 AM

The status being granted is designed, in part, to encourage healthy family environments. If gays can adopt at all, then gay marriage must offer a value to society by virtue of improving the adopted children’s situations.

RightOFLeft on July 17, 2009 at 12:35 AM

And then you’re talking about a minor benefit only to gay couples who have adopted.

That’s not enough to convince people that marriage itself should be changed, especially when they’re only convinced that homosexual couples adopting is the lesser of two evils.

Since when did Cannibalism become natural? It is also a socially destructive behavioral.

Since it was done “naturally” in nature. That’s kinda the definition.

In any case why is everyone trying to make judgement on who should be able to adopt children. This should have nothing to do with Federal Law.

Doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it.

And conservitives talking Scientologist’s should not be allowed to adopt. Since when do conservitives make judgments on religion choice. These adoption issues are for the States not at Federal level.

Ed Laskie on July 17, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Again, we’re people, not f-ing robots.

If I think scientologists are fruit cases, then I’m allowed to say that. Doesn’t mean we’re making law here.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:44 AM

And as long as they keep whining, “But, I’m the dog!”, they lose elections for real Reagan conservatives.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:36 AM

No one’s whining “But, I’m the dog!” except you saying that we’re doing this!

Good night, Jen. Do your freaking homework.

Screw you.
I do more research, reading and analysis on the issues than you can imagine.
If you read Twitter, you’d know.

Rush said the other day that we have too big a battle in front of us to be battling over smaller issues like the “cultural” ones you and Meggie are quibbling over–we have a country to save and Conservatives (including conservative Democrats) & Republicans need to be united.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:44 AM

See how easy it is to start controlling peoples life?

Ed Laskie on July 17, 2009 at 12:38 AM

By talking on a forum?

I HAVE THE POWER!!!!

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM

I do more research, reading and analysis on the issues than you can imagine.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:44 AM

…and yet you dismiss statistics regardless of source by simple virtue of the fact that they were printed in the New York Times.

Uh huh.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:46 AM

The comments regarding gay marriage and adoption reflect the very reasons I am seriously considering changing my party affiliation from Republican to Libertarian or Independent. And, no, I’m not a squishy moderate.

You see, I thought that Conservative meant small government with limited interference in private lives. I understand the viewpoints of some on social issues, but that is just that…a social issue and not the business of the Federal Government.

I, too, am against “gay marriage” but only because I do not believe the Government should be involved in marriage AT ALL and I don’t wish to entrench their involvement further by having the Government actually “define” marriage. (In nutshell: Civil unions for all for legal purposes; religious marriages decided by religious institutions and chosen by the people marrying. Government should have no say in that)

As for adoption, I am thankful for every gay couple who wishes to adopt, raise, care for and love an unwanted child in a loving home.

I don’t have statistics, I’m going solely on personal experience, but every gay couple I’ve known (granted, that’s only 4 couples) who have adopted children have adopted either older children who have been stuck in the system for years with their chances of being adopted diminishing with each year (which breaks my heart) OR they have chosen to adopt an infant, but they adopted non-white babies who, sadly, also aren’t as “in demand” (which also breaks my heart). To me, THAT is a good thing.

And even if the above isn’t the case in any significant amount statistically, I’m STILL grateful. See, I’ll always choose a baby being adopted over aborted.

Lori_Z on July 17, 2009 at 12:46 AM

If you read Twitter, you’d know.

Twitter? Oh, that’s really, really deep.

I’m embarrassed to even have you on the conservative side of the line. What a moron.

Good night. Do your homework.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:47 AM

You see, I thought that Conservative meant small government with limited interference in private lives. I understand the viewpoints of some on social issues, but that is just that…a social issue and not the business of the Federal Government.

Gee, Lori, if only Jenfidel had half your brains, what a wonderful world it would be.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:50 AM

Since when do conservitives make judgments on religion choice. These adoption issues are for the States not at Federal level.

Ed Laskie on July 17, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Really?

RightOFLeft on July 17, 2009 at 12:50 AM

Allah, I think it’s because MM is either a fake (possible) or that she won’t do anything completely and mainly because everything she does seems designed to make some big group of people like her. That’s irritating.

You say what you think and you’re either right (Obama’s economic plans are turds) or wrong (there is no God). But you’re saying what you think, not trying to make people like you.

If anything, you’re enjoying some people not liking you, which is a mindset which has a few different explanatory mindsets – none of which are really relevant to the now.

thebadoutlaw on July 17, 2009 at 12:51 AM

Twitter? Oh, that’s really, really deep.

It can be.
You’ve obviously never done it.
I have almost 9,000 updates.

I’m embarrassed to even have you on the conservative side of the line. What a moron.

Then, you’ll be embarrassed that Karl Rove, John Boehner, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Hugh Hewitt, Glenn Beck and a multitude of other Conservatives are Tweeting regularly, too.
Better still, you find thousands of ordinary Americans that read, share and feel just as passionately about the future of the country as I do.

Good night. Do your homework.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:47 AM

I’ve done my homework.
It’s you that needs to shut up, quit posting on blogs and turn to thoughtful reading and study.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:53 AM

Shall I hose you down?

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:35 AM

And why do I have the feeling that’ll have the opposite effect?

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:54 AM

And conservitives talking Scientologist’s should not be allowed to adopt. Since when do conservitives make judgments on religion choice. These adoption issues are for the States not at Federal level.

Ed Laskie on July 17, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Conservatives make judgments when they have, through ample research, discovered a religion to be, in actuality, a cult which abuses its members. The only judgments conservatives are supposed to be against are uninformed ones.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:54 AM

Really?

RightOFLeft on July 17, 2009 at 12:50 AM

Really. Read your Bill of Rights. 10th Amendment.

And send a copy to Jenfidel. On Twitter.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:55 AM

I have almost 9,000 updates.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:53 AM

So post count = intelligence?

Wow.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:57 AM

…and yet you dismiss statistics regardless of source by simple virtue of the fact that they were printed in the New York Times.

Uh huh.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:46 AM

Dismissing one source doesn’t make one a poorly read or informed person or the NYSlimes wouldn’t be going bankrupt and the public wouldn’t be better educated.
The internet gives us a world of sources–literally.
We can fact check anything.
That guntotingwhatever chose the Slimes as his source is rather unfortunate if he wanted to make the point that the GOP was losing the youth vote.
Of course the Slimes would only concur and be only too glad to document it.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:57 AM

So post count = intelligence?

Wow.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:57 AM

In my case, yes.
A good deal of them are intelligent and substantive.
You had to ask, right?

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:59 AM

And why do I have the feeling that’ll have the opposite effect?

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 12:54 AM

Intuition mixed with tingling.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:59 AM

So if a man or woman is sterile, does it go against nature for them to have a child by other means? Was nature saying they shouldn’t be parents?

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:27 AM

Sure, in vitro fertilization is unnatural, but the result of a man and woman having a child together isn’t unnatural.

Regardless of whether or not both members of a gay couple are healthy, well rounded people, (most of the gay people I’ve known seemed to be, though not all), it can still have a negative affect on children and society. Is it appropriate for the state to help make a child gay by greatly increasing the chances they will be?

What if boys raised by two men are twice as likely to be gay? Assuming it eventually becomes mainstream, and homosexuality increases as a result, and becomes even more mainstream, how does that eventually alter the balance of our society, and does it decrease the viability of our society and culture? Is it a form of cultural suicide?

What if the ratio of homo/hetero doesn’t change in the children involved in the experiment but the subjects of the experiment grow up and have a much higher divorce rate than usual because they’re heterosexual marriage isn’t what they expected based on their gay parents? What if these kids are twice as likely to abuse drugs or engage in other destructive behavior, including suicide, as divorced children or children raised in foster care or orphanages?

None of these questions can be answered, and there are thousands more, because the experiment has never been tried, but we already know what happens when heterosexual couples involved in nutty religions or cults have babies.

That’s how we got where we are today.

With that, I’m signing off.

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 1:00 AM

That guntotingwhatever chose the Slimes as his source is rather unfortunate if he wanted to make the point that the GOP was losing the youth vote.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 12:57 AM

Given that you’re citing your Twitter update count as evidence of your level of savvy, you’re not arguing in the direction you think you are.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 1:01 AM

Intuition mixed with tingling.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 12:59 AM

If only I didn’t have to work in the morning.

Good luck here.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 1:01 AM

Really. Read your Bill of Rights. 10th Amendment.

And send a copy to Jenfidel. On Twitter.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:55 AM

I know all about the 10 Amendment as does my Governor, I’m happy to say.
(Actually, I’d be more likely to read something sent to me on Twitter!)

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 1:02 AM

What if boys raised by two men are twice as likely to be gay?

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 1:00 AM

1. What if it is? If so, it’s a natural progression as a result of a natural conclusion come to by our naturally formed society.

2. What if it isn’t? We won’t know either way until we try to find out.

but we already know what happens when heterosexual couples involved in nutty religions or cults have babies.

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 1:00 AM

Yeah, they all end up drinking Flavor-Aid and lying down to die.

Something tells me homosexuality has yet to cause Jonestown.

Good night to you.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 1:03 AM

Given that you’re citing your Twitter update count as evidence of your level of savvy, you’re not arguing in the direction you think you are.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 1:01 AM

Perhaps not, but if you ever read my Tweets, you’d see that most are composed of links to important stories or events that we’re dealing with right now.
It takes a lot of work–I used to blog & good political Tweeting takes almost as much work, plus it’s in real time and you get almost immediate response.
Quite a phenomenon.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 1:04 AM

If only I didn’t have to work in the morning.

Good luck here.

Esthier on July 17, 2009 at 1:01 AM

If not for multi-state separation…

Nighty night.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 1:04 AM

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 1:04 AM

Pasting links may be a task, but I’m sure if I pasted the links of every story that I found interesting every day, my Twitter count would be comparable. It still doesn’t mean anything other than you know Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V.

You’re dismissing statistics based not on the source, but on the reporting agency that forwarded them. You obviously put forth no effort to verify them on your own. Therefore, to turn around and state your bibliographic superiority is, shall we say, comical. It’s a poor attitude for anyone who values knowing what the hell you’re talking about.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 1:08 AM

BTW Jenfidel, a test sample from your Twitter page as of right now yields out of 20 Tweets:

11 instances of chatting with others
8 re-tweets
1 instance of you posting an article on your own

At that rate, your actual updates where you post links make up 5%. Not particularly impressive. Twitter isn’t impressive, anyway. Blogs are far more substantial. Having to squeeze thoughts into 140 characters is a sad confirmation of our pitiful attention spans.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 1:15 AM

People talk as though gay marriage and adoption by gays is the inevitable result in our march to progress. That’s lib talk there. Nothing is inevitable. The world is moving towards more socially conservative viewpoints, and the places which aren’t are dying out.

Social engineering experiments should not be carried out on children, especially vulnerable children like orphans, but liberals love to try. Earlier in our history the health-freakish progressives thought that it’d be a good idea to have “hygienic” orphanages where babies never got any human contact. Most of those babies died. We’ve moved on, but haven’t learned. A kid needs a mom and a dad, living in the same home, in relative safety. Just because it doesn’t work out that way in nature doesn’t mean you abandon the ideal.

guntotinglibertarian: Few conservatives are ranting about gay adoption, still less trying to ban it. But if you don’t hold conservative values, what good is it to call yourself conservative and win elections? Not any good at all as far as I’m concerned. I’m willing to make political compromises, but not to compromise my beliefs.

evergreen on July 17, 2009 at 1:30 AM

140 characters is a sad confirmation of our pitiful attention spans

Wait, wait…are you suggesting that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Federalist Papers the Bill of Rights and the works of Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Russel Kirk and William F Buckley cannot be consensed into 140 characters?

No wonder Jenfidel is such an ignoramus. I wonder how many of her 9,000 Tweets are of the character of, “I had a really good bowel movement.”

No wonder Jenfidel is such an

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:31 AM

We won’t know either way until we try to find out.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 1:03 AM

Let’s assume, hypothetically, that in 20 years it’s determined through statistical analysis that 5000 of the subjects in your experiment have died that wouldn’t have otherwise, either through suicide, ODing on drugs, DUI crash, etc… Would you propose the immediately cessation of the experiment and an attempt to undo the damage to those that remain alive? Would much would the whole fiasco of an experiment have cost the state for attempting to mess with mother nature?

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 1:32 AM

Having to squeeze thoughts into 140 characters is a sad confirmation of our pitiful attention spans.

MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 1:15 AM

Yup. BUT, that is the very reason why I do believe The Twit can be an important tool. With blogs, you are oftentimes (obviously not always) preaching to the choir, as they are the ones who will spend the time to read a substantial piece.

With The Twit, you can hit people of varying ideologies quickly with a point; they’ll all read it because it is short enough for their attention spans. And, it works far better for Conservatives and Libertarians than it does for Liberals…they can’t make quick, cogent points. They tend to ramble on and on circuitously.

(Not defending the idea of having lots of Twittery Tweets equaling vast knowledge. I’m simply talking about The Twit in general as a media/political tool)

Lori_Z on July 17, 2009 at 1:35 AM

But if you don’t hold conservative values, what good is it to call yourself conservative and win elections?

You confuse your obsessions with abortion and gays with “conservative values.”

For the umpteenth time, conservative values consist of:

Small Federal government
Upholding the 10th Amendment with regard to having states decides such issues
Low taxes
Secure borders
Strong national defense
Resisting governent influence into the lives of families and individuals
American exceptionalism

The “values” of abortion and gay marriage and all that should be decided within each state. But that’s not good enough for you guys. You want the Federal government to enforce your particular “values” and otherwise leave you alone. It doesn’t work that way, chump.

Any Federal government big enough to ban abortion is big enough to ban child-bearing.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:36 AM

OH, Meg ……….

Mirror, mirror …………..

Go take a good, hard look, dear. It’s for your own good.

dissent555 on July 17, 2009 at 1:37 AM

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:36 AM

What he said.

That is all.

Lori_Z on July 17, 2009 at 1:39 AM

And, it works far better for Conservatives and Libertarians than it does for Liberals…they can’t make quick, cogent points. They tend to ramble on and on circuitously.

Quite the contrary, Lori.

For me to explain the Federalist Papers requires a LOT more than 140 characters.

But Liberal slogans fit quite nicely:

Bush Lied. People Died.
Cheney/Halliburton
Bush is stupid
Hope and Change
Amerikkka is Racist
Republicans are hateful
Palin is a dope
Palin spent $150,000 on clothes

On and on and on. Get my point?

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:40 AM

On and on and on. Get my point?

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:40 AM

Yes, I do get your point and it is a good one. But, I do know that WAY more people read my Twitter feed than ever read my blog. If even one starts to actually *think* a bit, I’m happy.

Plus, I don’t mean to use it as a way to thoroughly explain things; it’s impossible with such limited characters. But it works well to set up an idea, then link to something that further explains it.

I’m also not saying it is *the* way to go, just as sort of an adjunct tool to other outlets and means of communicating ideals and ideas.

Lori_Z on July 17, 2009 at 1:45 AM

Which is exactly what I am saying.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:22 AM

That’s not what you said at all, liar.

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 1:49 AM

I’m also not saying it is *the* way to go, just as sort of an adjunct tool to other outlets and means of communicating ideals and ideas.

Lori_Z on July 17, 2009 at 1:45 AM

Fair enough. I just am leery of simplistic communication, which I associate with the Left.

Ronald Reagan gave long, wonderful, thoughtful speeches. His opponents countered with things like:

Amiable dunce
Dumb Hollywood actor
Trickle-down economics
Voodoo economics

The Left understands how stupid a large part of the electorate is and they throw out snarky little soundbites that their sheep can repeat, with smug looks on their faces.

The Right has the much more difficult task of informing people about history, political philosophy, economics. I just do not see how we can do that in 140 characters.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:51 AM

What’s your point? I didn’t happen to notice any big, fat voting totals for the “conservative” party. Like it or not, conservatives mostly vote Republican. (Except for me, I vote Libertarian).

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:29 AM

You speak as if you are conservative, when it’s pretty clear you’re a liberal.

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 1:51 AM

Also, like anything else, it is what you make of it. Allah’s, Ed’s and Michelle’s feeds, for example are excellent.

It also helps combat the all Conservatives are old stick in the mud fascists and all Libertarians are crazy pants stereotypes when people see actual Conservatives and Libertarians being *gasp* human, rational, making sense and sometimes even *double gasp* funny.

Lori_Z on July 17, 2009 at 1:52 AM

That’s not what you said at all, liar.

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 1:49 AM

Wow, I am humbled and chagrined by the eloquence of your riposte.

What can I say? You’ve brilliantly driven a stake through my lying vampire heart.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:52 AM

Well, I’m done for the evening.

Just want to say this, though: Ronald Reagan did not campaign or win on stupid issues like abortion or gay marriage. He campaigned on American exceptionalism, national defense, low taxes and small government.

It just so happened that he energized the “Moral Majority” into getting off their lazy asses and voting.

They were the tail. Reagan was the dog.

Now, they think they’re the dog.

And as long as they keep whining, “But, I’m the dog!”, they lose elections for real Reagan conservatives.

Good night, Jen. Do your freaking homework.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 12:36 AM

How many libertarian presidents have there been? How many libertarian Senators are there currently, again? Zero?

Oh.

Well.

Perhaps you should save your lecturing then until, you know, you actually win something. Just sayin’.

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 1:55 AM

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:52 AM

I thought you went to bed? And what about your poor grandmother?

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 1:56 AM

The Left understands how stupid a large part of the electorate is and they throw out snarky little soundbites that their sheep can repeat, with smug looks on their faces.

The Right has the much more difficult task of informing people about history, political philosophy, economics. I just do not see how we can do that in 140 characters.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:51 AM

Exactly. But in order to DO the informing, we have to get the attention of the shortly-attention spanned electorate and, quite possibly, may have to use the Left’s own weapons against them. History has shown that one must learn to use the Roman sword against Rome itself. Or die.

Lori_Z on July 17, 2009 at 1:56 AM

I find it so amusing that pro-life fanatics, as a last resort, always call me a liberal.

I also find it so amusing that pro-life fanatics are so often males, who do not have to face the ultimate consequences of spending time in prison for having an abortion.

Now there’s courage for ya.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:56 AM

Exactly. But in order to DO the informing, we have to get the attention of the shortly-attention spanned electorate and, quite possibly, may have to use the Left’s own weapons against them. History has shown that one must learn to use the Roman sword against Rome itself. Or die.

Lori_Z on July 17, 2009 at 1:56 AM

Well said.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:57 AM

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:56 AM

Actually, your pro-abortion stance has very little to do with my calling you a liberal.

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 2:01 AM

How many libertarian presidents have there been? How many libertarian Senators are there currently, again? Zero?

Do a little reading, dunce.

The function of 3rd parties is to register a protest when a mainstream party strays too far from its base.

The GOP started as a 3rd party.

The Progressive Party forced the Democrats towards socialism

The Green Party cost Al Gore the 2000 election

The Libertarian party cost the big-spending GOP 3 Senate seats in 2006 and 2008

In a closely-divided electorate, 3rd parties have enormous influence.

The problem lately is that the Dems listen to “their” 3rd party and move further left. The GOP arrogantly ignores the Libertarians and continues to lose as a result.

But understanding this requires one to read a great deal of American political history. I don’t expect you to do your homework – it’s much easier to demonize true conservatives who don’t agree with your fanatical cultural views.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 2:03 AM

Actually, your pro-abortion stance has very little to do with my calling you a liberal.

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 2:01 AM

Oh really? Do tell how you discovered my covert liberalism, then.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 2:05 AM

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 2:03 AM

I don’t want to defend the GOP. I can’t stand the GOP. But your libertarianism isn’t any better. It leads to globalism and the breaking down of society just like left-liberalism does. Only, perhaps, at a slightly slower pace.

Oh really? Do tell how you discovered my covert liberalism, then.

Well, you are a libertarian. Libertarians are, by definition, classical liberals. Or are you not as familiar with history as you claim?

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 2:10 AM

better. It leads to globalism and the breaking down of society just like left-liberalism does. Only, perhaps

Whaaaa? Wow. That’s just the most out-of-left field thing I’ve heard in like…forever.

As for classical Liberalism, you have no freaking idea what you’re talking about. Good night, dunce.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 2:13 AM

How libertarianism is really an ally of leftism

I don’t expect guntotinglibertarian to understand this, but I thought I’d post it anyway, for the heck of it.

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 2:16 AM

Whaaaa? Wow. That’s just the most out-of-left field thing I’ve heard in like…forever.

I know that in your little ideological worldview, it is out of left field. But that doesn’t make it wrong. It’s not my fault you’re so ignorant that you don’t even realize where your stupid ideology eventually leads.

Good night, dunce.

Good night, moron. Again.

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 2:19 AM

By the way, guntotingmoron really should stop listing “secure border” as one of his conservative values, since libertarians in general are very pro open-borders. Is this an area in which the conservatives should listen more to the smarter libertarians as well?

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 2:22 AM

FloatingRock on July 17, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Man, I’m kind of shocked at the comparison. I mean, let’s think about it, what are the substantive deviations from the norm associated with gay parents and homeless parents. Kids with gay parents have all the same stuff, same extended family, etc., but they only have parents of the same gender. It’s probably a little confusing when they’re young, and they probably get made fun of, depending on where they live. In contrast, if your parents are homeless, you presumably can’t afford the stuff you need to go to school, you probably don’t have regular access to proper sanitation, probably can’t afford health care, along with any number of other probable distinction (physically unsafe environments, safety from the elements, etc.).

Seriously, what do you think having gay parents is going to do to the kid? I mean, if there were so many people trying to adopt that there was competition to adopt every child, I could understand the argument that the kids might be better off with parents of both genders, but there are kids living in foster homes, there are kids that don’t have parents, what do you think gays are doing to these kids that they would be better off without parents?

galenrox on July 17, 2009 at 2:40 AM

You want the Federal government to enforce your particular “values” and otherwise leave you alone. It doesn’t work that way, chump.

I’ve seen no (as in “none”) Conservatives voicing their wish to have the Federal Government enforce our Conservative values…,chump.
Defense of Marriage Act was signed by Bill Clinton, a Liberal Democrat.
Prop 8 was defeated in California by Obama voters, most of them Democrats & black.

Any Federal government big enough to ban abortion is big enough to ban child-bearing.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:36 AM

Any Federal government big enough to grant abortion on demand without parental approval up until birth (Roe v. Wade) is big enough to ban child-bearing altogether, as advocated by NObama’s current Science Czar John Holdren.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 2:42 AM

what do you think gays are doing to these kids that they would be better off without parents?

galenrox on July 17, 2009 at 2:40 AM

I’d rather not even go there, thanks.
I can only pity any children that are not only without a home, but so desperate for one that their last resort is to be taken in by a homosexual couple.
Aside from any sexual impropriety, the role model that same sex “parents” would provide is totally wrong for impressionable young minds in their formative years.
I find it hard to believe that there are very many children in this country in that unfortunate state.

Jenfidel on July 17, 2009 at 2:46 AM

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 2:19 AM

You’re right that that doesn’t make it wrong. The nature of human interaction does. Trade, ALL trade has been moving in the same general direction ever since person #1 first interacted with person #2, and for the exact same reason. Trade exists because we can mutually benefit through interaction, and so naturally the more people we can interact with the more everyone can benefit. If human continue to exist, there will eventually be one global state. It could be 100 years away, it could be 1,000 years away, it could be 10,000 or 100,000 years away, but the pattern has been too consistent for anyone to realistically argue that we should avoid something because it allows a pattern that will play out no matter what you do to play out.
The collapse of the US consumer market should slow things down, which is probably wise as we’re not quite sophisticated enough in our governments to really trust everyone to have our economic fates as intertwined as we were on progress to be. If you want to see how we’ve benefited from freeing up our markets, compare to the life of people in America to the life of people in Tajikstan.

galenrox on July 17, 2009 at 2:53 AM

I have the sinking feeling that Tajikistan was a bad choice of an example. Whatever.

galenrox on July 17, 2009 at 3:06 AM

If human continue to exist, there will eventually be one global state. It could be 100 years away, it could be 1,000 years away, it could be 10,000 or 100,000 years away, but the pattern has been too consistent for anyone to realistically argue that we should avoid something because it allows a pattern that will play out no matter what you do to play out.

I reject your assertion that globalism is an inevitability no matter what we do, because it simply is not true. Now, under the current liberal state of the West, regionalism (such as what we see with the E.U.) is a more likely scenario, and globalism could perhaps grow out of that, provided the rest of the world played along. More likely, however, is that the West, due to its liberalism, destroys itself before that point is reached. Liberalism naturally leads to its own suicidal destruction.

But if we rejected our liberalism and returned to a tradionalist form of society much like we had at the time of America’s founding, which recognized larger truths such as religion (Christianity), culture, nationality, and race, along with individuality, we would no longer, as a nation, find ourselves in this danger. Or at least we would have a fighting chance.

Again, I’m afraid you’re using the same kind of hopeless speak that guntotinglibertarian used. You’re saying something is inevitable when it is not. You’re saying that the left will win out in the end, no matter what we do, so we might as well just give up. I reject that rationale completely.

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 3:12 AM

You’re right that that doesn’t make it wrong. The nature of human interaction does. Trade, ALL trade has been moving in the same general direction ever since person #1 first interacted with person #2, and for the exact same reason. Trade exists because we can mutually benefit through interaction, and so naturally the more people we can interact with the more everyone can benefit.

I don’t know what trade has to do with it. For thousands of years nations have successfully trading goods with each other without falling into globalism. One does not naturally lead to the other.

2Brave2Bscared on July 17, 2009 at 3:24 AM

To be fair to JTP he never claimed to be the brightest mind in the room he is after all just a plumber who got famous by putting Obama on the spot with a rather pertinent and it seems prescient question. Megan on the other hand needs to remember that old adage about the pot calling the kettle black.

Dreadnought223 on July 17, 2009 at 5:19 AM

I’d contend that Obama made this guy famous.

AbaddonsReign on July 17, 2009 at 5:57 AM

Why loathe Meggie?It’s quite simple.It’s called LOYALTY.
JTP was out trying to help her father get elected. I’d take it that, if she is at least part conservative, there are a few things JTP & Meggie agree on.

Why go out of your way to bash a person, who tried to help your family, unless all you care about is your own celebrity.

Jeff from WI on July 17, 2009 at 5:57 AM

Skank

bill30097 on July 17, 2009 at 6:10 AM

Joe is not a good representation for the party. Is “dumbass” a bit far? Maybe, but not by much. He asked a good question and provided a spark for McCain’s run but beyond that nothing much.

Dash on July 17, 2009 at 7:31 AM

Why does anyone care what this Media Whore thinks?

The only thing she is worth is the money she will inherit. Other than that she has not nor will she ever accomplish anything on her own.

Bicyea on July 17, 2009 at 7:36 AM

When news is slow AP’s brain lacks the ability to analyze important news, as it is does tonight, it’s either MeggieMac or an atheism post. Consider yourselves lucky.

Time for a standard “AllahPundit is a shallow analyst, just stirring up trouble to generate traffic” post.

Right_of_Attila on July 17, 2009 at 8:14 AM

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.

Exit answer. I do not loathe Meggie. What I do loathe is her seeming disdain for people like Wurzelbacher or Sarah Palin, outsiders who want to challenge the status quo. John McCain (and I thank him and his family for their service to this country) was correctly seen as the “insider” candidate while Dear Leader was the “change” or outsider candidate. Most people in the US are fed up with the current government, both Republican and Democrat, though they aren’t sure what direction to go. It’s no accident that Obama and Palin are very popular to their bases, as these two are not part of the Establishment.

Is JtP a good guy or bad guy? I have no idea. But I live in Toledo and the amount of bad press he got was astounding. The fact that he had a $1000 tax lien was constantly trumpeted in the Toledo Blade, more ink was spilled on that than all of the tax problems all of Dear Leader’s nominees combined. All of that simply because JtP had the temerity to ask a straightforward question of a presidential candidate, who stumbled and exposed his own, essentially marxist, beliefs. That is unfair and people know it. That is why continuing to attack him is counterproductive. He was unfairly attacked once and so other attacks are going to be seen as unfair.

It’s the same with Sarah Palin. If you were a politician and asked to be the VP nominee, you most likely are going to say “you betcha”. I would. And she has been unfairly and mercilessly attacked by the Left and the Media. This instinctively makes those who share at least some of her views (and are more horrified by the other side’s intents than anything Palin might do) feel protective of her. Thus any valid criticism gets drowned out by the din of false criticism.

Meggie has spent her whole life within the Republican elite. But right now the elites of both parties are corrupt and concerned solely with their own power. It does not profit her to be seen as an insider fighting the outsiders of her own party. What with prokulous 1, 2 and 3, cap and tax, Obamacare and who knows what is next, there are real battles to be fought. Meggie should be manning the ramparts against these assaults on our liberty rather than criticizing those who are fighting. Whether Sarah or Joe would make a good president I don’t know. But I do know they are pointing out the current emperor has no clothes. Which is more than anyone else is doing.

rbj on July 17, 2009 at 8:36 AM

Hey Megan – if your daddy wasn’t such a Putz during the campaign perhaps we wouldn’t be in such a crap hole today with Barry. If your dad would have done a better job campaigning instead of wimping out because of his honor then we wouldn’t have to listen to you become a media worm.

poppieseeds on July 17, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7