Jim DeMint: “You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative”

posted at 9:21 pm on November 9, 2010 by Allahpundit

That’s the money line from tonight’s Fox News “12 in ’12″ presidential profile; skip ahead to 3:00 if you don’t want to watch it all. He made this same point, albeit in a more elaborate way, at the Values Voter Summit in September. Let me gently suggest that this bumper-sticker version is doing him no favors, since it can’t help but alienate every last libertarian who sees it. His idea, as explained in greater detail at the VVS, is that God and government are forever jockeying for position as moral beacons in the public’s imagination. The bigger government gets, the smaller God gets, and vice versa, so if you’re eager to shrink state bureaucracy and promote self-reliance, expect people to react by looking elsewhere for moral guidance — like, say, back to traditional Judeo-Christian values. Thus are all fiscal cons also social cons, whether wittingly or not. And in fairness, that idea isn’t completely out of left field: There is indeed a relationship between God and government in the average person’s mind, although the touchstone is security, not morality. The less stable a government is, apparently, the more one turns to faith for reassurance that everything will be okay. The universe requires order and one or the other will provide it psychologically. (The U.S. is a notable exception to the either/or rule.) Which makes me wonder, how many fiscal cons support shrinking government because it means greater freedom for its own sake and how many support it simply as a means of moving people over to a different security blanket that they prefer?

Originally, I thought this message was just something DeMint was pitching at Christian conservatives to convince them that the tea party’s libertarianism is overblown, that they’re still a cherished constituency despite the reordering of conservative priorities to favor spending over “values.” But now I think he means it, which makes me wonder. For instance, last I checked, Glenn Beck’s a fiscal conservative (and notably a fan of the idea of Americans turning back to God) but also … fine with gay marriage. DeMint himself, however, is not: He told Al Hunt last year that neither the feds nor state governments should have the power to legalize same-sex unions. Per his God/government dynamic, I would think he’d support getting government out of the marriage business altogether and trusting in Judeo-Christian morals to handle this problem, but he still supports state recognition of traditional marriage as far as I can tell. Likewise with his comments about how gays and unwed mothers don’t belong in the classroom. Said GOProud’s founder Chris Barron of that, “The idea that someone who says they believe in limited government would support the government weeding out gay teachers and unmarried sexually active female teachers simply defies logic.” So maybe our error here is in assuming that when DeMint says “fiscal conservatism,” he means it as a byword for “less government” universally. Maybe government that works to reinforce Judeo-Christian values is fine. I guess, like Mitch McConnell, we all have our exceptions to the master plan.



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

What rot. We have people right now on this planet who have actual 13th century mindsets, and would love to bring the same to the rest of the world at the point of a sword. Perhaps you’ve heard of them.

Missy on November 10, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Ok, so you have to be muslim to have a 13th century mindest? That’s almost like saying you have to be a social conservative to be a fiscal conservative.

Heralder on November 10, 2010 at 11:15 AM

?The Westboro Church?

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Sure, Jimbo3. Those are the scariest guys on the planet. No, really.

Missy on November 10, 2010 at 11:18 AM

No, what you’re saying is that your completely insane! Theology is a source of human suffering and slavery to authoritarian dogma, masquerading as “salvation” in some existence after you’re dead.

MJBrutus on November 10, 2010 at 6:44 AM

And here comes the angry at god, even though he doesn’t exist, atheist with his frothing at the mouth posts of anger and personal attacks.

Daemonocracy on November 10, 2010 at 11:18 AM

And where do they get their science education, if I may be so bold?

;-)

Good Lt on November 10, 2010 at 8:55 AM

You’re either joking or have absolutely no understanding of Catholic education.

Ask some Catholic School 2nd graders how old the Earth is and to name the geographic periods. Then do the same for some 2nd grade government school child.

Another instructive exercises is as for a tour of a Catholic school and just look at the walls in the hallways and the classrooms.

TheBigOldDog on November 10, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Ok, so you have to be muslim to have a 13th century mindest? That’s almost like saying you have to be a social conservative to be a fiscal conservative.

Heralder on November 10, 2010 at 11:15 AM

I’m saying that it is ridiculous hyperbole to suggest that Jim DeMint has a 13th century mind, when there are people right now stoning women to death, executing gays, and murdering apostates in every country where they can gain a political foothold. Their stated goal is to return us to the caliphate of 700 years ago.

And yet according to some it’s just soooo clever and witty to joke that Jim DeMint is a 13th century type of guy. Give me a break.

Missy on November 10, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Huh? Demint’s right.

The left loves to portray themselves as “progressives” or “moderates” by saying they are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. This simply means they are fiscally conservative with their own funds but socially liberal with yours. If that works for you, fine, but don’t think you’re a Conservative.

NTXLass on November 10, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

kingsjester on November 10, 2010 at 10:02 AM

My favorite quote ever. But Adams would never have envisioned government-imposed morality, either the left-wing kind or the right-wing kind. The entire notion of self-government in his view depended on people properly governing their own behavior and acting morally, i.e. honoring contracts, respecting the rule of law instead of resorting to violence to resolve disputes, working hard for a day’s pay, being voluntarily charitable toward the poor and toward all fellow men, not being greedy or jealous, honoring marriage vows, etc. A moral and religious people do not need an imposing central government to do anything, and will not tolerate one. Each person’s individual moral actions together produce a harmonious society, much the same way that the “invisible hand” of the free market produces maximum prosperity. If everyone really followed and lived the Ten Commandments and loved one another the way Jesus said we should, we wouldn’t need a whole lot of government.

The dilemma now is that we have become a largely immoral and irreligious people. It is arguable that our Constitution is not designed for such people to govern themselves, because they can’t or won’t govern their own behavior. Then we get into the trench warfare of whose morality gets imposed by government.

rockmom on November 10, 2010 at 11:24 AM

But Adams would never have envisioned government-imposed morality, either the left-wing kind or the right-wing kind.

That is because he didn’t envision it being necessary. Or perhaps, he hoped it wouldn’t become necessary. He knew the Constitution would only be viable with a certain type of citizenry, whose morality was already firmly established. Sadly, we don’t have that type of citizenry anymore, as you eloquently pointed out.

Missy on November 10, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Well, I hate to disagree with one of the few real fighters of the Republican party, but I do.

One CAN be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. One probably shouldn’t be, for the sake of keeping one’s values consistent, but since when are people consistent.. or even somewhat logical.

LegendHasIt on November 10, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Excuse me? Tell ya what Jimbo…..if you morons start getting loud with your social nonsense before you go to work on jobs and the economy…..your done…..just like the jug-eared-dope and his minions.

Your party was given a mandate to fix the economy in the midterms, D-Bag, try not to blow it….oh, and BTW, stay the F*** out of my bedroom.

Tim_CA on November 10, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Libertines need to empower government to compel acceptance of their various and sundry “lifestyles”. Egalityranny must be imposed and government is the hammer. Demint is stating a truism.

vilebody on November 10, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Libertines need to empower government to compel acceptance of their various and sundry “lifestyles”. Egalityranny must be imposed and government is the hammer. Demint is stating a truism. – vilebody on November 10, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I made an F in Algebra ……………….. I want to protest. My teacher is gay and in the closet. Fire him and give me an A.

SC.Charlie on November 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM

I’m saying that it is ridiculous hyperbole to suggest that Jim DeMint has a 13th century mind, when there are people right now stoning women to death, executing gays, and murdering apostates in every country where they can gain a political foothold.

Missy on November 10, 2010 at 11:24 AM

It’s a deliberate overstatement, yes. I found it funny, you found it offensive, and I’m not going to waste more time on it. Instead, I will extract all the snark and centennial reference from it and present you with the dried, pleasantly boring husk of “severely antiquated”.

Heralder on November 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Jim, you were doing so well. Time to shut up. We do not need to bash social issues right now. We need to address fiscal issues. Leave the social issues to the states.

Anyway, it is the Dems who are pushing social issues. We can sit back and be defensive on that. But it is idiotic to say you have to be a social conservative to be a fiscal conservative.

Mr. Joe on November 10, 2010 at 11:43 AM

“The bigger government gets, the smaller God gets, and vice versa”

Tell that to 15th century Spain, 16th century Britain, Iran, Saudi Arabia…

DeMint has the cart before the horse. Families falling apart do not cause Government to expand. But Government expanding causes families to fall apart. No need to stay married if there is welfare, free daycare, and breakfast lunch and dinner at school.

The strength of traditional families will reach its natural equilibrium without government enforcement. When people hit bottom, they learn their lesson or destroy themselves. Let them.

elfman on November 10, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Excuse me? Tell ya what Jimbo…..if you morons start getting loud with your social nonsense before you go to work on jobs and the economy…..your done…..just like the jug-eared-dope and his minions.

Your party was given a mandate to fix the economy in the midterms, D-Bag, try not to blow it….oh, and BTW, stay the F*** out of my bedroom.

Tim_CA on November 10, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Tim, I totally agree with you (I’m an independent BTW). Not at all sure where you got the impression I’m a social conservative. In Texas, GOP congressmen filed a bunch of bills in the last three days. In addition to immigration reform, voting IDs and allowing concealed guns on college campuses, they also filed bills (i) effectively prohibiting the use of cell phones when driving in most situations; (ii) eliminating straight ticket voting and (iii) requiring that a pregnant woman seeking a non-medical abortion be shown an ultrasound and listen to the heart beat of the fetus (she can avert her eyes, but apparently still is required to listen).

That sounds like a whole bunch of nanny state crap to me. I don’t think the GOP gets this.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 11:43 AM

The mandate you got Jim is to cut spending and taxes. Get to it.

Mr. Joe on November 10, 2010 at 11:44 AM

This quote would be better understood and therefore more applicable if the term “Right” was used instead of “conservative.” Better still would be if the word social came before fiscal.

Even as is, I cannot imagine why this quote is so egregious to a L(l)ibertarian that it might possibly question one’s allegiance. The idea that social sentiments trumping fiscal policies is preposterous for L(l)ibertarian idealogy.

anuts on November 10, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Jimbo3

I got the impression Tim was talking to Senator “Jimbo”…jimbo3. {8^P

And doing really well. I’m with you both.

tree hugging sister on November 10, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Um no, Jim. You would be incorrect.

khacha on November 10, 2010 at 11:57 AM

That’s a reasonable argument to get government out of the marriage business, but there still remains the issue of paternal responsibility that marriage was originally intended to address.

Count to 10 on November 10, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Often the state addresses parental responsibility w/o a marriage agreement. It seems a stable arrangement that is dedicated to the raising of children should receive whatever reasonable tax and legal considerations are in the best interest of the children.

dedalus on November 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM

OK, social conservatives should start with making divorce illegal. And, children had out-of-wedlock will taken away from the woman and put up for adoption and correctly called bastards in public records. Of course they will be given to married couples

Gay children or those perceived to be gay will not be protected from bullying in public schools. They need to learn sometime to learn that they best change their sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation.

SC.Charlie on November 10, 2010 at 12:04 PM

He has it backward.

You can’t be a social conservative without being a fiscal conservative.

Also, you’re neither if you support preemptive, perpetual war and torture.

Rae on November 10, 2010 at 12:06 PM

They emerge from observations of society and best governance.
Religion is a weak link to rest such rights on, since religion is quite obviously mutable.

Count to 10 on November 10, 2010 at 7:45 AM

And observations about society don’t change? The best governance in the year 500 AD was not Republican democracy.

Christianity has been around for 2000 years which is a far more solid foundation than what is currently fashionable in political or sociological circles.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 12:11 PM

And, I voted for this DeMint. I should have written-in Donald Duck. I just could not vote for his Democrat opponent under any circumstances.

I wonder if DeMint would be for the expulsion of Lindsey Graham from Congress, if Graham came out of the closet.

SC.Charlie on November 10, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Christianity has been around for 2000 years which is a far more solid foundation than what is currently fashionable in political or sociological circles.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 12:11 PM

And it will be around for another 2000, which is why it shouldn’t tie itself to any government or cultural movement. The objectives of a government and a religion are different as are their means.

dedalus on November 10, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Sure there is. You have a right to defend yourself if your life is threatened because you’re a human animal and you’re ABLE to defend your life. You aren’t guaranteed success at the outcome, but who has a right to prevent you from mounting a defence?

So clearly you have the right to murder as well. If you are ABLE to murder another then you have the right. Doesn’t guarantee you will win but who has the right to prevent you… except of course the one you are trying to murder.

Bunnies have a right to run from a predator.. because they’re bunnies and they can. There’s no natural law which insists they roll over and accept that they’re meat.

So rape is also a right? I mean because you can?

You have a right to free speech because you’re a human animal and you’re capable of verbal communication. It doesn’t matter whether it was God or nature that made you that way. It only matters that there is predictable conflict when humans are prevented from exercising their natural abilities.

Because I am capable of yelling fire in a crowded theater means I have the right to do so?

Natural rights aren’t about religion. They’re about predictable social conflict.

Murf76 on November 10, 2010 at 8:34 AM

Predictable conflicts exist about a lot of things but they don’t establish any rights derived from nature. Some have argued that conflict is in fact a social good that prevents stagnation.

Let us have a dagger between our teeth, a bomb in our hands and an infinite scorn in our hearts.

Three cheers for the war. Three cheers for Italy’s war and three cheers for war in general. Peace is hence absurd or rather a pause in war.

War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and imposes the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to make it.

This attitude is far more common in history than the love of peace.

What exists in nature just is. It doesn’t make it moral and it doesn’t establish any rights on your part.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Heralder on November 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Fair enough. I don’t agree that DeMint is one, but I guess I have always been a fan of dried, pleasantly boring husks. ;) I just hope we don’t nominate one in 2012!

Missy on November 10, 2010 at 12:31 PM

You can’t be a social conservative without being a fiscal conservative.

Also, you’re neither if you support preemptive, perpetual war and torture.

Rae on November 10, 2010 at 12:06 PM

You’re 100% correct, but oh boy, now you’ve done it…! *runs for cover*

Dark-Star on November 10, 2010 at 12:35 PM

The less stable a government is, apparently, the more one turns to faith for reassurance that everything will be okay. The universe requires order and one or the other will provide it psychologically. (The U.S. is a notable exception to the either/or rule.)

No, it really isn’t. If you were to show a monk from the 11th century around the United States today he would probably faint. The US of 2010 is very irreligious by historical standards compared to most Christian European countries from around 300A.D. to the 19th century and to its former self from the early 17th century right up to the 1960s.

There are people of faith and then there is a much larger demographic of people who observe the outward forms and continue to use the language of traditional Christian thought and life, but do not believe in the truths which ground them. Then there is the large anti-Christian popular culture (Lady Gaga etc.) By historical standards, this is really quite poor.

Relevant:

The Number One Religion in the U.S. May Be Egonovism, Not Christianity

aengus on November 10, 2010 at 12:40 PM

I guess I have always been a fan of dried, pleasantly boring husks. ;) I just hope we don’t nominate one in 2012!

Missy on November 10, 2010 at 12:31 PM

:D Me either!

Heralder on November 10, 2010 at 12:46 PM

“You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative”

Well since you can’t be a fiscal conservative and be a Republican *does the math* that means you can’t be a fiscal or social conservative and be a Republican.

Benaiah on November 10, 2010 at 12:52 PM

You’re either joking or have absolutely no understanding of Catholic education.

Ask some Catholic School 2nd graders how old the Earth is and to name the geographic periods. Then do the same for some 2nd grade government school child.

Another instructive exercises is as for a tour of a Catholic school and just look at the walls in the hallways and the classrooms.

TheBigOldDog on November 10, 2010 at 11:20 AM

I thought the ;-) was the indication of a gentle ribbing, but I guess that gets glossed over these days.

And for the record, I know about Catholic schools, having attended CCD during my childhood, being Catholic and having best friendsattend Catholic school.

My CS friends were all well educated in all subjects, including science.

Easy there, tiger.

Good Lt on November 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM

I am NOT a social conservative if it means that I have to be a gay marriage opponent. I want the Republican party to stand for the liberty of ALL.. not just those who fit into a certain mold. It is not the government’s business to be legislating morality. And I certainly don’t want them sticking their nose into the personal lives of individuals.. consenting adults who are doing others no harm.

This is what turns people off of the Republican party.

SueM on November 10, 2010 at 1:08 PM

It is not the government’s business to be legislating morality.
SueM on November 10, 2010 at 1:08 PM

If not based on morality, what? I don’t understand this often quoted phrase. It is only proper that laws have moral reasoning for existence.

anuts on November 10, 2010 at 1:21 PM

@ Good Lt: It doesn’t tell you that you must “approve” of abortion – only that prohibiting it is illegal. Which results from a bad SCOTUS decision that rightly should be undone and left to the legislatures to decide instead of the federal judiciary.

As you said earlier, rape, murder and assault should be illegal everywhere because they violate a person’s rights. Unborn human beings who have been murdered at the rate of 40 million so far? Who cares about them? Nah, throw it to the states; no Federal protections for those useless parasites who cramp my libertine style, and forget what our Founding Documents say about some unalienable God-given (who?) right to Life.

While you’re at it, let’s undo the Civil War, which cost 600,000 lives to affirm that states’ rights do not, among other things, include violating a person’s right to be free. But wait. If you think states should have the power to violate a person’s right to life, then why should you deny states their rights to once again determine the legality of other actions that violate human sovereignty? If the unborn can be killed, why not slaves again be held, depending on what the State Legislatures have to say?

Tell us again why slavery should be banned at every level of the law, theft and assault should be banned at every level of the law, but unborn children should be murdered at will from state to state?

Those who expect and demand that the Federal statutes offer protections for themselves from egregious offenses against their persons and even inanimate property, but deny the unborn their right not to be ripped apart and thrown in the trash, should just admit they don’t care what happens to these defenseless innocents as long as their ox isn’t being gored. But that is in the process of being set up. If obamacare stands, the extension of killing the unborn will be made to the defenseless and cost ineffective among all of us. Think death panels. I hear that some pro-life, Christian know-nothing rube came up with that phrase. What a joker huh? Doesn’t this white trash know that states, not the Federal govt. should decide who is denied life saving medical care?

Could you make it easier on everyone and admit that you all who hold the above views are simply pro aborts? And keep your fiscal con nonsense to yourself. Because even marginally decent people don’t put their wallets ahead of others’ lives. And heroes lay down their lives for others. And abortion is costing us trillions with 40 million missing from the labor force. Did you ever think that these 40 million would be contributing to the solvency of SS? How many trillions in innovation and industry has been wiped out because an entire generation, going on two, is missing? How about the medical costs for the mental problems and what these problems spawn in unemployment and depression and crippled lives; how many hundreds of billions have PP and other “family planning” and public education groups sucked unconstitutionally from the Federal govt.? Just transfer that mayhem to the states if they legislate for it, hmm? And while you’re at it, why don’t you take responsiblity for the decay in this nation, compliments of abortion, that brought about the election of our first openly infanticide-promoting president?

This site used to have just a few of your types; now it’s becoming rife with the stench of cowardice as the attempt is made to rot the conservative movement from within. Get it straight. There are still some people left in this world who will defend the defenseless first, and then worry about the rest, like their money, later. It’s called human, not animal priorities. It’s what made the Greatest Generation great. This generation? Not so much.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM

DeMint is right.

I see that noone were able to come up with an answer to my challenge: Name one elected politician in Congress that is both a consistent fiscal conservative and a consistent social liberal.

The reason is simple: They don’t exist.

Of course, there are numerous who are fiscally conservative and socially conservative.

Norwegian on November 10, 2010 at 1:32 PM

This site used to have just a few of your types; now it’s becoming rife with the stench of cowardice as the attempt is made to rot the conservative movement from within. Get it straight. There are still some people left in this world who will defend the defenseless first, and then worry about the rest, like their money, later. It’s called human, not animal priorities. It’s what made the Greatest Generation great. This generation? Not so much.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Why don’t you let us know the place and time of your next public protest against abortion? I’d sorta like to attend.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 1:32 PM

We do not need a Neo-Santorum right now Jim. We need fiscal hawks. Get your head in the game.

Even Michelle Malkin is not cutting W much slack.

But as bad as Bush was with the economy, Obama is just about doubling down. This has got to change because we can’t afford it.

Congress should move to first get rid of Bush’s Medicare prescription drug expansion. Obama has already said he thought it was too expensive. Let him veto that. That would show the GOP is serious about cutting spending and Obamacare can be next in order (and massive entitlement expansion we cannot afford). You do those two changes and you can then work to resolve the problems with social security and medicare.

As far as discretionary spending (including defense), which is at about $1.8 trillion for 2010, how about a 5% cut accross the board, including salaries of all federal employees. President and Congress included. That is doable (are you telling me any agency or defense could not cut 5%) and would send a very clear signal. That would save $900 billion dollars. Too crazy? How about a 2.5% cut? That would save $450 billion.

Mr. Joe on November 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM

I made an F in Algebra ……………….. I want to protest. My teacher is gay and in the closet. Fire him and give me an A.
SC.Charlie on November 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM

You’re out of luck: the Left control the schools and the dominant culture. You have to suck up and accept your F (justice) but you must attend sensitivity training concerning the homosexual lifestyle. Also, you will be required to apologize to your math teacher and his partner.(egalityranny)This perhaps will teach you to vote for RINO social liberals and accept your place.

wraithby on November 10, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Your party was given a mandate to fix the economy in the midterms, D-Bag, try not to blow it….oh, and BTW, stay the F*** out of my bedroom.

Tim_CA on November 10, 2010 at 11:29 AM

I edited out the part where you called people morons, but I find this hilarious. Nobody wants to be in anyone’s bedroom. But when the radical “gays” start marching in the streets and bragging about what’s going on in their bedrooms, and foisting their perversions on children and insisting that they be called normal, then I’m going to balk.

The radical “gays” want to criminalize my right to teach my child my beliefs. They want to criminalize my right to say that homosexual behavior is a sin. If they would just shut the hell up, then I would leave them the hell alone. But they can’t because they have a NEED to be considered normal, because they know they are NOT normal.

JannyMae on November 10, 2010 at 1:53 PM

SC.Charlie on November 10, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Hyperbole much?

JannyMae on November 10, 2010 at 1:55 PM

It is not the government’s business to be legislating morality. And I certainly don’t want them sticking their nose into the personal lives of individuals.. consenting adults who are doing others no harm.

This is what turns people off of the Republican party.

SueM on November 10, 2010 at 1:08 PM

It’s those who wish to change the centuries old marriage laws who want to legislate morality. Nice try, though.

JannyMae on November 10, 2010 at 1:58 PM

well that screw demint because he is NOT a social conservative so therefore he is not a fiscal conservative

georgealbert on November 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM

The radical “gays” want to criminalize my right to teach my child my beliefs. They want to criminalize my right to say that homosexual behavior is a sin. If they would just shut the hell up, then I would leave them the hell alone. But they can’t because they have a NEED to be considered normal, because they know they are NOT normal.

JannyMae on November 10, 2010 at 1:53 PM

VERY TRUE the gay ‘rights’ movement is fascist as hell.

I do not trust ‘libertarians’. they’re basically liberals lying about fiscally conservative. ever read lewrockwell. com? crazy wacko people.

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Why don’t you let us know the place and time of your next public protest against abortion? I’d sorta like to attend.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Why is that? You openly admit that should your own daughter become pregnant, you would push her to abort you own grandbaby. Your time would be better spent in trying to figure out why you are such a monster, Jimbo3.

And don’t forget to get photographs of your savagely dismembered grandbaby after the abortion. I’m sure an assertive, honest, intellectual like you would like to keep these photos of your murdered grandchild in your wallet so that you can proudly display them to your friends as you brag about your love of abortion, while your unenlightened friends share photos of their living gifts; their treasured grandchildren. Because you support abortion, correct? And you wouldn’t want to hide any aspect of it, especially it’s effects on your own flesh and blood, would you?

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Why is that? You openly admit that should your own daughter become pregnant, you would push her to abort you own grandbaby. Your time would be better spent in trying to figure out why you are such a monster, Jimbo3.

And don’t forget to get photographs of your savagely dismembered grandbaby after the abortion. I’m sure an assertive, honest, intellectual like you would like to keep these photos of your murdered grandchild in your wallet so that you can proudly display them to your friends as you brag about your love of abortion, while your unenlightened friends share photos of their living gifts; their treasured grandchildren. Because you support abortion, correct? And you wouldn’t want to hide any aspect of it, especially it’s effects on your own flesh and blood, would you?

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Cause I’d like to attend and protest against you.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM

The radical “gays” want to criminalize my right to teach my child my beliefs. They want to criminalize my right to say that homosexual behavior is a sin. If they would just shut the hell up, then I would leave them the hell alone. But they can’t because they have a NEED to be considered normal, because they know they are NOT normal.

JannyMae on November 10, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Who the h*ll ever said anything about criminalizing your free speech right? This is the US, not Canada. Now, if you decide to block or push people or disrupt people, that’s a different story. But that’s not free speech.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 2:10 PM

The GOP is a three-legged stool. One leg is social conservatives, one leg is fiscal conservatives and the other leg is national defense hawks. Each leg is essential or the stool will fall and if one trys to be longer (more important) than the others the stool won’t be comfortable either.

KW64 on November 10, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Who the h*ll ever said anything about criminalizing your free speech right? This is the US, not Canada. Now, if you decide to block or push people or disrupt people, that’s a different story. But that’s not free speech.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 2:10 PM

lets see they stopped the catholic charities from giving adoptions in MA because they wouldn’t give kids to gays.

so why do you think they’re NOT after our free speech when thats what they do in every other country?? hmmmm???

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 2:14 PM

The radical “gays” want to criminalize my right to teach my child my beliefs. They want to criminalize my right to say that homosexual behavior is a sin.

JannyMae on November 10, 2010 at 1:53 PM

VERY TRUE the gay ‘rights’ movement is fascist as hell.

I do not trust ‘libertarians’. they’re basically liberals lying about fiscally conservative. ever read lewrockwell. com? crazy wacko people.

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 2:05 PM

This. Canada is violating freedom of speech, conscience and religious rights on the altar of “gay rights”. These radicals, in their own words, want to criminalize any speech or thought or religious belief that opposes them, to pervert children with graphic descriptions of their sexual acts from K-12 onward. This is where “gay marriage” comes in. I don’t think they give a darn about “marriage” but if codified into federal and state law, then their “marriages” and the sex-ed that would go along with them would be written in stone and forced on every child within system, that is to say the majority of the nation.

This gay dicatorship is deadly serious about stripping rights, imposing their beliefs and criminalizing opposition and they have made hugely significant inroads.
GOProud is a front for these radicals, pretending to be conservative while pushing the entire gay agenda to be fulfilled using the power of the Federal Leviathan.
They are Leftist Liars who must be laughing at us constantly for biting on the bait of their GOProud label as proof they are conservatives. Maybe something simple like, oh, looking at GOProud’s own stated federal cramdown of the gay agenda as found on their website could clear things up for those who are still confused about their true reason for being.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Why is that? You openly admit that should your own daughter become pregnant, you would push her to abort you own grandbaby. Your time would be better spent in trying to figure out why you are such a monster, Jimbo3.

And don’t forget to get photographs of your savagely dismembered grandbaby after the abortion. I’m sure an assertive, honest, intellectual like you would like to keep these photos of your murdered grandchild in your wallet so that you can proudly display them to your friends as you brag about your love of abortion, while your unenlightened friends share photos of their living gifts; their treasured grandchildren. Because you support abortion, correct? And you wouldn’t want to hide any aspect of it, especially it’s effects on your own flesh and blood, would you?

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Cause I’d like to attend and protest against you.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM

No, you’d like to attend to promote the barbaric dismemberment of innocent, soft, defenseless babies, because you’re such a man. And the fact that you would also like to personally target me must mean that I have hit a nerve, and/or that you’re just a psycho.

btw, care to answer my question about whether or not you would be proud to show off pictures of your aborted grandchild, since you have admitted that you would push for that grandchild to be aborted, and you are such an abortion lover? I’m waiting.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Excuse me? Tell ya what Jimbo…..if you morons start getting loud with your social nonsense before you go to work on jobs and the economy…..your done…..just like the jug-eared-dope and his minions.

Your party was given a mandate to fix the economy in the midterms, D-Bag, try not to blow it….oh, and BTW, stay the F*** out of my bedroom.

Tim_CA on November 10, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Tim, I totally agree with you (I’m an independent BTW). Not at all sure where you got the impression I’m a social conservative. In Texas, GOP congressmen filed a bunch of bills in the last three days. In addition to immigration reform, voting IDs and allowing concealed guns on college campuses, they also filed bills (i) effectively prohibiting the use of cell phones when driving in most situations; (ii) eliminating straight ticket voting and (iii) requiring that a pregnant woman seeking a non-medical abortion be shown an ultrasound and listen to the heart beat of the fetus (she can avert her eyes, but apparently still is required to listen).

That sounds like a whole bunch of nanny state crap to me. I don’t think the GOP gets this.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 11:43 AM

LOL…I meat “jimbo” DeMint Jimbo…sorry about the confusion.

Tim_CA on November 10, 2010 at 3:37 PM

The GOP is a three-legged stool. One leg is social conservatives, one leg is fiscal conservatives and the other leg is national defense hawks. Each leg is essential or the stool will fall and if one trys to be longer (more important) than the others the stool won’t be comfortable either.

KW64

However social conservatism used to be until not that long ago, a major part of the Democratic Party. The other two as you mention, fiscal conservatism and hawkish foreign policy, have been traditionally part of the Republican Party.

That being said, i cant give equal footing to a movement that used be almost exclusively Democrats and that gave us Jimmy Carter, LBJ, and enthusiastically got behind the FDRs New Deal, as the same importance as fiscal conservatism/limited government.

And you can still see in this thread, so many social conservatives who think if you are not one of them, then you are a social liberal, which is a complete fallacy. Both social conservatives and social liberals believe in using the power of the federal government to fight values battles, its just the nature of the values differ.

There are plenty of us who believe in small government and fiscal conservatism, and who see individual freedom and not being told how to live by a left or right nanny state as an integral part of being an American.

I wonder if the Social Liberals do the same thing too, accusing people of being social conservatives if we do not want to use the power of the government to push their values. Because while I am not a social conservative, I am just as far from being a social liberal too. I have done a pretty good job coming up with my own values, without needing a nanny state to do it for me.

firepilot on November 10, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Your party was given a mandate to fix the economy in the midterms, D-Bag, try not to blow it….oh, and BTW, stay the F*** out of my bedroom.

Tim_CA on November 10, 2010 at 11:29 AM

I edited out the part where you called people morons, but I find this hilarious. Nobody wants to be in anyone’s bedroom. But when the radical “gays” start marching in the streets and bragging about what’s going on in their bedrooms, and foisting their perversions on children and insisting that they be called normal, then I’m going to balk.

The radical “gays” want to criminalize my right to teach my child my beliefs. They want to criminalize my right to say that homosexual behavior is a sin. If they would just shut the hell up, then I would leave them the hell alone. But they can’t because they have a NEED to be considered normal, because they know they are NOT normal.

JannyMae on November 10, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Janny is exactly the inane moron repub of whom I speak – guess what Janny? There’s, like a reaaaalllly bad Recession thingy goin’ on…..so your just going to need to excuse me if I want my government to concentrate on that…..and want YOU to handle raising your kids.

Worry Less about the “Radical Gays” and more about JannyMae and how she’s going to make her mortgage payments and pay her gocery bill.

Lord almighty you are absolutely clueless. and so is DeMint if he starts heading off on this tangent

Tim_CA on November 10, 2010 at 3:52 PM

And the fact that you would also like to personally target me must mean that I have hit a nerve, and/or that you’re just a psycho.

btw, care to answer my question about whether or not you would be proud to show off pictures of your aborted grandchild, since you have admitted that you would push for that grandchild to be aborted, and you are such an abortion lover? I’m waiting.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Who’s personally targeting you? I just figured there’d be a bunch of people with you? You have an inflated opinion of yourself.

Why would I keep a picture of something that looks like a pureed tadpole in my wallet? Is it because you keep pictures of 20 week aborted fetuses in your purse to hand out to people on street corners? (Hint: “Normal” people don’t do either of those things).

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 4:03 PM

@tigerlily oh hi there I never did get to finish our chat from before.. hmm whats up abortions? tedious.. Why don’t seem to believe in individual freedom?

Zekecorlain on November 10, 2010 at 4:16 PM

@tigerlily oh oh am I a member of the Gay Dictatorship?? Silly me and I thought I sold paper and paper accessories. also the GOProud are a group of douche nozzles and I can assure you they are really really conservative. All they care about is Reagan and Money.

Me on the other hand I’m a humanist and I want a better future for all kids. That why I support teaching kids sex education, it reduces teen pregnancy and STD rates. Unless your FOR teen pregnancy and STDs?

Zekecorlain on November 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM

LOL…I meat “jimbo” DeMint Jimbo…sorry about the confusion.

Tim_CA on November 10, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Got it. I’m slow on the uptake.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 4:27 PM

lets see they stopped the catholic charities from giving adoptions in MA because they wouldn’t give kids to gays.

so why do you think they’re NOT after our free speech when thats what they do in every other country?? hmmmm???

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 2:14 PM

They didn’t stop the Catholic Charities from doing adoptions. The state adopted a rule that said that the charities couldn’t discriminate against gay couples. Catholic Charities made the decision to stop.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 4:28 PM

@Right4life you know as well as I do that the catholic charities chose to stop because they were using state funds and facilities. The fact is they could have continued with their discrimination but they would have had to use their own money. Money they needed to pay off all the victims of their priest who molested them..for generations. That’s a moral lot there.

Zekecorlain on November 10, 2010 at 4:33 PM

@Right4life you know as well as I do that the catholic charities chose to stop because they were using state funds and facilities. The fact is they could have continued with their discrimination but they would have had to use their own money. Money they needed to pay off all the victims of their priest who molested them..for generations. That’s a moral lot there.

Zekecorlain on November 10, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Catholic Charities uses facilities operated by the Diocese, which are not public facilities. But you may continue lying in your endless quest to smear the Catholic Church. After all you support litigation against organizations that don’t bow and grovel to every request of the gay community.

No, they can’t go to the places that actually cater to them, everyone must allow them access, whether it’s anathema to their morals or not! eHarmony must be destroyed because it does not cater. Catholic Charities must cease adoptions! No one anywhere should be able to offend the awesome moral character of the boastful, prideful homosexual, who fancies themself so special that anyone who dares oppose them can speak to their lawyer.

BKennedy on November 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM

AP, your hybrid conservatism/libertarianism will fail you and the country eventually just like liberalism has.

scotash on November 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM

unreal

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 10:16 PM

It takes too long to explain why a lapse in morality (ie the opposite of social conservatism) is just as bad as liberalism. There are consequences to bad choices, they translate into fiscal consequences no matter how unreal you breathlessly claim them to be.

scotash on November 10, 2010 at 5:21 PM

@Bkennedy gosh your right they weren’t using state facilities but they were using state funds, actually the catholic church chose to stop because no one offered them an exemption when they changed their policies. since they had already placed adopted kids in gay households.
The view that gays would not be good parents is not even central catholic belief and is considered “third tier”

The Roman Catholic caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement has pointed out consistently that the church’s teaching on homosexuality is officially recognised as third level in the doctrinal hierarchy of truths. It does not touch upon the primary beliefs that define a Catholic, and while requiring from Catholics “religious respect – obsequium religiosum”, it may nevertheless be open to conscientious dissent.

Considering the track record of catholic bishops leaving children in the care of known child molesters it is still the height of hypocrisy that they should some how claim that they know what is best for children. Nor should they have special consideration that would remove any government oversight of their activities.

Zekecorlain on November 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM

@Right4life you know as well as I do that the catholic charities chose to stop because they were using state funds and facilities. The fact is they could have continued with their discrimination but they would have had to use their own money. Money they needed to pay off all the victims of their priest who molested them..for generations. That’s a moral lot there.

Zekecorlain on November 10, 2010 at 4:33 PM

no I don’t know that at all.

whats discriminatory about giving children to a MAN and WOMAN??? hmmmmm??? to call that ‘discrimination’ is idiotic.

why don’t you post your proof about your allegations? They were DRIVEN OUT OF BUSINESS BY THE FASCIST GAYS.

but even if you’re right tell me, where is it written that if you get state funds, you LOSE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 5:50 PM

They didn’t stop the Catholic Charities from doing adoptions. The state adopted a rule that said that the charities couldn’t discriminate against gay couples. Catholic Charities made the decision to stop.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 4:28 PM

uh yeah…so much for their freedom of religion, right? we both know it’ll be ‘discrimination’ to say or do anything that the gays don’t like….

just like the Doctor in CA….who doesn’t have the right to refuse artificial insemination to a lesbian….

The California Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that doctors cannot cite their religious beliefs as grounds to deny gay and lesbian patients medical care.

Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California’s anti-discrimination law.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5604598&page=1

looks like you don’t have any rights when it comes to the gays.

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Considering the track record of catholic bishops leaving children in the care of known child molesters it is still the height of hypocrisy that they should some how claim that they know what is best for children. Nor should they have special consideration that would remove any government oversight of their activities.

Zekecorlain on November 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM

isn’t it interesting that all the catholic pedophiles priests were gay???

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 5:56 PM

@right4life so the church is a business? Huzzah you finally realized! no they closed their own doors thank you very much.

besides why are you sticking up for the pedophile church’s right to handle children?

Zekecorlain on November 10, 2010 at 5:58 PM

oh it had nothing to do with state funding of the catholic charities…

From there, it was only a short step to the headline “State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business,” which ran over an opinion piece in the Boston Globe by John Garvey, dean of Boston College Law School. It’s worth underscoring that Catholic Charities’ problem with the state didn’t hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey’s assessment: “Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 6:00 PM

@right4life so the church is a business? Huzzah you finally realized! no they closed their own doors thank you very much.

besides why are you sticking up for the pedophile church’s right to handle children?

Zekecorlain on November 10, 2010 at 5:58 PM

they’re being treated like a business aren’t they?

no they didn’t close their own doors they were FORCED out of business by those ‘tolerant’ gays who sure can’t tolerate anything they disagree with.

all those pedophiles were GAY…weren’t they now? what do you think about that? hmmmmm?

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Ok, so you have to be muslim to have a 13th century mindest?

The phrase “13th century mindset” makes no sense. Francis of Assisi was alive during the 13th century. Did he have a 13th century mindset? He must have done.

aengus on November 10, 2010 at 6:42 PM

And here comes the angry at god, even though he doesn’t exist, atheist with his frothing at the mouth posts of anger and personal attacks.

Daemonocracy on November 10, 2010 at 11:18 AM

So says another moron who is too stupid to see that my scorn is not directed at some fictional entity but at the bigoted jerks who worship said fictional entity.

MJBrutus on November 10, 2010 at 6:45 PM

but at the bigoted jerks who worship said fictional entity.

MJBrutus on November 10, 2010 at 6:45 PM

speaking of bigoted jerks, have you checked the mirror lately?

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Why is that? You openly admit that should your own daughter become pregnant, you would push her to abort you own grandbaby. Your time would be better spent in trying to figure out why you are such a monster, Jimbo3.

And don’t forget to get photographs of your savagely dismembered grandbaby after the abortion. I’m sure an assertive, honest, intellectual like you would like to keep these photos of your murdered grandchild in your wallet so that you can proudly display them to your friends as you brag about your love of abortion, while your unenlightened friends share photos of their living gifts; their treasured grandchildren. Because you support abortion, correct? And you wouldn’t want to hide any aspect of it, especially it’s effects on your own flesh and blood, would you?

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Cause I’d like to attend and protest against you.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM
No, you’d like to attend to promote the barbaric dismemberment of innocent, soft, defenseless babies, because you’re such a man. And the fact that you would also like to personally target me must mean that I have hit a nerve, and/or that you’re just a psycho.

btw, care to answer my question about whether or not you would be proud to show off pictures of your aborted grandchild, since you have admitted that you would push for that grandchild to be aborted, and you are such an abortion lover? I’m waiting.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Who’s personally targeting you? I just figured there’d be a bunch of people with you? You have an inflated opinion of yourself.

Why would I keep a picture of something that looks like a pureed tadpole in my wallet? Is it because you keep pictures of 20 week aborted fetuses in your purse to hand out to people on street corners? (Hint: “Normal” people don’t do either of those things).

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 4:03 PM

I’ll just let your own words condemn you.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 6:52 PM

looks like you don’t have any rights when it comes to the gays.

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Nothing in the Constitution – NOTHING – is absolute. People have curious, often erroneous, beliefs regarding the Constitution. The reality of it is that virtually everything in the Constitution is subject to limitations, very much including the Bill of Rights.

You don’t have an ABSOLUTE freedom of speech / religion.

Vyce on November 10, 2010 at 6:53 PM

You don’t have an ABSOLUTE freedom of speech / religion.

Vyce on November 10, 2010 at 6:53 PM

no but apparently the gays sure have an ABSOLUTE right to take what little rights we do have away.

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 6:57 PM

I’ll just let your own words condemn you.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 6:52 PM

You’ve long since condemned yourself to the role of bitter old Puritan harpy, kittyplant. Your incoherent, hate-filled rants are an embarrassment to reasonable Christians and detrimental to the SoCon cause since they reveal their agenda loud and clear.

Shouldn’t you be out (alone) on some corner waving misspelled signs and screaming “BAYBEE KILLER” ?

Dark-Star on November 10, 2010 at 6:59 PM

The Roman Catholic caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement has pointed out consistently that the church’s teaching on homosexuality is officially recognised as third level in the doctrinal hierarchy of truths. It does not touch upon the primary beliefs that define a Catholic, and while requiring from Catholics “religious respect – obsequium religiosum”, it may nevertheless be open to conscientious dissent.

Zekecorlain on November 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Hey, Zekecorlain. No, we never did finish but I almost got finished by it! Anywho, I’m going to jump right in here, with the caveat that I have to leave fairly shortly.

I don’t know who the group you refer to is, and unfortunately anyone can call themselves Roman Catholic or Catholic while misrepresenting the truth as they cloak themselves in the power of the words “Roman Catholic”.

Here are three levels of Church teaching. The first two must be believed as a Catholic, the last must be obeyed until/unless revised:

Infallible Teaching
Doctrinal Teaching
Disciplines of the Church – (example: It was a discipline instituted by the Church that meat was to be fasted from on Fridays. That would be considered “third level” in that it can be changed. And it was. Whether that was a good thing is for another debate.)

Homosexual acts, as taught in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, are always gravely sinful (a mortal sin) and intrinsically disordered.

Note the Church is careful to condemn the acts, not the actors. That final judgement belongs to God, however the Church notes that indulging in said acts with full knowledge of seriousness and full consent of one’s will, put one’s soul in mortal peril.

The “Roman Catholics” that you refer to here are claiming that they can disregard the Church when She declares certain actions mortally sinful, such acts including adultery, abortion, murder, rape, etc.

In other words, when the Church declares certain human actions as gravely sinful, this declaration is linked to the dogmatic teachings on sin, (second tier) both venial and mortal.

Hence, a believing Catholic would never try the sloppy deception attempted by the group you quote here. The truth has been declared, and while through free will a Catholic may disobey, they will be doing so at the risk of their own soul, and not because “it may nevertheless be open to conscientious dissent.” Not only “MAY” it not be open to such, it is impossible that the Church would allow such when salvation of soul is at risk.

This is truly an ugly deception used by thugs hoping to ensnare those who may not be aware of their disgusting manipulation of the facts by throwing in a phrase like “third tier”, and hoping they don’t get caught misrepresenting it. To put in bluntly, they lie.

There is only one source for the trugh of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, universally, in all nations and for all peoples: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, available everywhere, and extremely easy to understand.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 7:34 PM

easonable Christians and detrimental to the SoCon cause since they reveal their agenda loud and clear.

Dark-Star on November 10, 2010 at 6:59 PM</blockquote

do tell what that agenda is!! and who is guiding this 'agenda'?? do you think the pope and cabal of protestants are plotting your demise??

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Can we get an edit button already so Rightaboutnothing can fix its posts?

Dark-Star on November 10, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Can we get an edit button already so Rightaboutnothing can fix its posts?

Dark-Star on November 10, 2010 at 8:22 PM

my posts sure make you look stupid, not that its very hard…

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 8:28 PM

my posts sure make me look stupid, not that its very hard…

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 8:28 PM

No it isn’t. You don’t even bother to use proper capitalization. Tell me, did you flunk tenth-grade English, or did they even go that high where you went to ‘school’?

Dark-Star on November 10, 2010 at 8:29 PM

No it isn’t. You don’t even bother to use proper capitalization. Tell me, did you flunk tenth-grade English, or did they even go that high where you went to ‘school’?

Dark-Star on November 10, 2010 at 8:29 PM

at least I went to school..you were too fat to fit through the doors though….

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 8:31 PM

at least I went to school…

On the short bus, no doubt.

.you were too fat to fit through the doors though….

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 8:31 PM

The diploma on the wall says differently.

Dark-Star on November 10, 2010 at 8:36 PM

The diploma on the wall says differently.

Dark-Star on November 10, 2010 at 8:36 PM

oh thats so nice of your mommy to make that little certificate for you!! bet you’re so proud of yourself!!

did she put a gold star on it too?

my aren’t you special!!!

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 8:39 PM

oh thats so nice of your mommy to make that little certificate for you!! bet you’re so proud of yourself!!

did she put a gold star on it too?

my aren’t you special!!!

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Pssst…that’s your diploma. Mine’s over here, and despite your pathetically stupid attempts at psychic powers, you have no idea what’s on it.

Here – $10 if you can guess what school I graduated from. Nice, green money. Does that fire your little-bitty brain? (cash or PayPal)

Dark-Star on November 10, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Pssst…that’s your diploma. Mine’s over here, and despite your pathetically stupid attempts at psychic powers, you have no idea what’s on it.

judging by your posts….VERY LITTLE…thats painfully obvious….wow.

hey you should sue for damages…brain damages!! LOL

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 8:45 PM

judging by your posts….VERY LITTLE…

That’s because you’re a shitty judge.

hey you should sue for damages…brain damages!! LOL

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Talking with you does incur temporary brain damage, true, but you haven’t enough money to be worth suing. Not even if I emptied out your piggy bank.

Dark-Star on November 10, 2010 at 8:52 PM

That’s because you’re a shitty judge.

BWAHAAHHA oh yeah…THE TRUTH HURTS!!!

bet those fat little HOG JOWLS are just QUIVERING with rage…..sweat pouring down all those FOLDS!!!!

open a window before your stench causes you to pass out!

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 8:55 PM

BWAHAAHHA oh yeah…THE TRUTH HURTS!!!

Is that why you’re popping aspirin like popcorn?

open a window before my stench causes you to pass out!

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Thankfully smells don’t go over the Internet from…hey, where do you park your worthless hide, anyway?

Dark-Star on November 10, 2010 at 8:58 PM

Thankfully smells don’t go over the Internet

I am thankful of that….wow I bet pigs run squealing from your presence!!!

oh and again imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!!! LOL

loser!!

right4life on November 10, 2010 at 9:01 PM

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 6:52 PM

I admire your passion for the unborn. One of these months I hope to make it to the Pro Life Action League’s protest of the PP in Aurora. It’s a hike for me but as a new(joined in April) Catholic I have a responsibility to speak up for the unborn.
Before you guys dogpile on me-I already said that I disagree with JDM.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 11, 2010 at 12:33 AM

SC.Charlie on November 10, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Hyperbole much? – JannyMae on November 10, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Probably, but even Reagan opposed Prop 6 back in 1978 in California. Prop 6 would make it legal to fire gay teachers or those that belonged to political groups that supported gays.

SC.Charlie on November 11, 2010 at 7:33 AM

DeMint Pence 2012, and no amount of AllahPundit saying Libertarians need to select our Candidates is gonna change that. Libertarians already have a Party dude. It’s called the Libertarian Party. And if what you guys do with that Party is any indicator of your ability to play politics, let me suggest you let the Big Boys do the driving. Pfft!

All these infiltrators who can’t make it on their own but KNOW how disgusting awful the Democrats are come in here trying to change things up and make us do the Socialism Light Version have mucked things up way too much up to know. I don’t trust em. I don’t want em. And I think we’re better without em calling the shots.

DeMint: DON’T BE COWED BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO FUNDAMENTAL COMMITMENT TO YOUR PARTY OR IT’S PHILOSOPHY. STICK TO YOUR PRINCIPALS AND YOUR FAITH AND NEVER WAIVER NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF PSYCHO THEY TRIED TO MAKE YOU OUT TO BE. TRUE CONSERVATIVES KNOW DIFFERENT… JUST REMEMBER THEY SAID THEY SAME ABOUT REAGAN AND THEN, ON HIS DEATH, CAME OUT A WEPT LIKE BABIES.

Sultry Beauty on November 11, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7